/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12483497
>my board

Scientifically speaking, how many points does each inch below 6' reduce your attractiveness value as a male?

We know that being 6' or taller automatically places you as a 7 on any reasonably calibrated scale, with dimishing returns for each additional inch. We also know that being 5'10 generally places you at a 5, or average, all other things being equal. I'm having a hard time working out how heights below that are percieved though. Based on my research it seems that 5'7 is when males generally start to be considered 'short' (placing anyone 5'7 automatically at a 3 if we assume equivalency), but do heights below this mirror heights above 6', where there are diminishing returns on how unnatractive this makes you, or do these compound, forcing anyone 5'6 and under farther into the tail? Thanks in advance, I've been having difficulty getting honest feedback

>>8206884
>height is genetic
Don't say that. I'm doing neck stretching exercises every day. It must be possible to gain an inch or two.

>>8123739
our society is set up to appease the short guys and beta males, and let them have women so they don't rampage and destroy society.

maybe when society becomes more efficient, we can kill them off.

>>8100493
>proven
>plugged into wolfram alpha

>>8088484
>intro