/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10050302
>manlets will now be aborted ensuring that they will NEVER learn

>>10050419
manlet genetics belong in the trash, every male will be 5'11 and above. Every female 5'6 ish

>>10050302
>correlate ∼0.65
>sci thinks this is good.

>>10050419
>>10050428
Nope
>>10050432
This

>>10050432
What was it two years ago?

>>10050419
>>10050428
Why would we ever engineer people to be tall, when smaller people are superior in every way in the modern world?

This is a pretty damn good predictor given that is entirely from a genetic test. Not to mention the prediction will scale with more data which is coming at cheaper and cheaper costs.

Not sure what the logic is behind saying it's unimpressive when majority predicted it would be impossible to do.

Have people ceded height as being okay for genetic determinism?

Are the goal posts falling down a steep slope till they only hang on ethnic differences? That would be a good thing.

>>10050457
Imagine being that guy with a predicted height of about 186 and an actual height of 170. Thats gotta sting.

>>10051993
who ever disagreed that height is caused by genes?

What are the likely implications of this for us short men?

>>10052018
people claim that women are shorter because they are systematically oppressed

>>10052047
Even blind women will be able to reject you with nothing more than a cheek swab

>>10050453
Especially for space travel or to live in harsher environments. But I have little hope that society will ever get over the height fetish.

>>10052047
nothing
>>10052053
That's retarded
>>10052055
shortness isn't less fit, if anything people are already caring less about this, and shorter heights are becoming more desirable for the modern environment.
>>10052059
I disagree desu

>>10052055
That is already the case.

>>10051993
There is a formula to predict height that takes the average of the parents height. Works very well and there was never any controversy over this.

>>10052063
Height definitely adds to male reproductive fitness, at least up to a certain point.

>>10052073
reproductive fitness, not survival fitness.
That's a social construct though (no meme)
Women aren't innately attracted to men taller than them (yes I know it sounds crazy but it's true).

>>10052063
>shortness isn't less fit, if anything people are already caring less about this, and shorter heights are becoming more desirable for the modern environment.

Must be nice to live in la la land. Meanwhile, in the real world height has become the most important physical trait and probably the most important trait overall too.

>>10052079
I don't see it
when I go outside, I do not see short men with girlfriends less often than tall ones. I see short men with gf's taller than them pretty frequently even w/o heels
on dating apps I agree, but not for the general population. "in the real world" no ones cares, it's on places like 4chan and the internet where it's a meme.
>the most important trait overall too.
No, high intelligence is rapidly becoming the most important trait overall.

>>10052076
That'll be a bit like trying to convince peahens that that big tail isn't really practical.

>>10052082
Please tell me where you live.

>>10052093
Moria

>>10052091
It is doable. But to change such memes, you need some big paradigm change. Like if for some reason short men started to become disproportionally successful, then their status would quickly rise and height preference would die out.

Just like what happened with "nerds" because of SV success.

>>10052018
height is a social construct. Think about it, who decided how long a foot was? You have this arbitrary line of 6' dividing 20% of guys from the rest. Therefore all talk of human height as if it was a real scientific thing is scientism.

>>10052091
It's not the same, women aren't caught in a fisherian runaway to maximize male height.
The reason women don't like shorter guys is because they feel "less feminine" and "awkward", this is a socially constructed response based on the male taller norm and media. It's dying though.
>>10052093
NYC. I frequently see attractive women with smaller men. It's not uncommon.
Given random distribution, and assuming women have no height preference, about 1/10 couples should feature a man shorter than the woman. I'd say it's less than that here, but still frequent enough that I see it all the time.

>>10052099
That is weird because from other personal accounts people told me that NYC is incredibly heightist.
I do know that heightism varies by locality though. Where I grew up people cared less and for example both my grandpas married taller women. But now I live in Sweden and women here are super heightist which is probably how they got taller in the first place.

>hurr duurrr I want to believe in genetic fatalism so badly!

>>10052105
>That is weird because from other personal accounts people told me that NYC is incredibly heightist.
Really? I don't experience that at all.
>But now I live in Sweden and women here are super heightist which is probably how they got taller in the first place.
Yea I've thought before that we should meme sweden into being considered anti-feminist because the women there so strongly push patriarchal gender norms in terms of women being smaller than men. It would be funny to see how they react to it.

>>10052111
"preferences are preferences" is their response - people have already been doing that for a long time

>>10052116
I've come up with a response to that, which I don't want to write out because it's long, but it is irrefutable. I've been thinking of writing it up as a paper and publishing it anonymously and spreading it across the internet.
Basically - preferences are not immune from criticism and are not immune from being discriminatory. I then go one to show (very strongly) why this is the case.

>>10052119
Get this. They already say that when it comes to race. It's just height that they are resisting.
Don't waste you time with those kinds of people. They are not interested in facts and science. Just their agenda of white middle class women empowerment at all costs.

>>10052128
>Get this. They already say that when it comes to race. It's just height that they are resisting.
I know, which is why it's very easy to make them out to be hypocritical. Although some do say preferences are fine when it comes to race (which I also disagree with)
>Don't waste you time with those kinds of people. They are not interested in facts and science. Just their agenda of white middle class women empowerment at all costs.
I don't care about that, social pressure is strong.
The preference isn't innate in the first place, so it won't even matter in the end.

>>10052119
>- preferences are not immune from criticism and are not immune from being discriminatory
duh
preference is discrimination, people just use "discrimination" as this stupid ass racism buzzword but what it is really is the act of differentiating between things

>>10052136
What I mean by that is, they are an aspect of overall societal discrimination.
Basically, people try to argue it like "people have a right to these things in their sexual lives, but no one should be discriminated against in work, society, education, etc".
I go on to show widespread relationship discrimination, is no different from widespread de facto prejudice and factors into societal discrimination in general.
Basically, you can't have a large group of people acting in a prejudiced discriminatory way en masse, and say it's anything other than a form of de facto societal prejudice (in this case, heightism).

>>10052142
I advice you to stop chasing pity. Winners don't become winners by complaining, just look at women and blacks. They bitched their way to freedom but they're still losers.

>>10052151
Not chasing pity, rather, consistency.
The only reason women 'prefer' taller men, is because of the current femininity social structure. It's socialized. That's why we don't see height preference in all cultures, and why not even all women in our culture care (something like half of women wouldn't date a shorter man, half would, and about 1.5% prefer smaller men).
This is not innate, and it would be very easy to undo with even just a few months of memes/social pressure. We could theoretically in the future meme femininity to be about being big and masculinity about being small (like, tying fecundity and motherhood as bigness, masculinity could be memed into being efficient and quick like their gametes, etc). It's all made up.
I also disagree with your statement about women and 'blacks' and in fact, find it highly sexist and racist and offensive. Why do you choose to be this way, sir?

>>10052018
Well, there are many arguments that height would be too complicated to predict for a very long time. People have claimed it was "too messy" to ever be useful especially 3 years ago when it was very weak and minimal results. Saying it was something we would not have to worry about because it's too complicated and environment too important.

Shorter people are in general more efficient. That's just a mechanical reality. Faster, stronger, more agile, longer lifespan. This is in part because of hip and lower spine structure. Narrower hips == more efficient bipedal locomotion. Though there are other traits, and a certain type of taller person can be quite fast. I imagine when all relevant traits are plotted, there's probably a peak which correlates with absolute height.

>>10050302
This is a very attractive woman. I hope you don't mind if I save this pic.

>>10050428
>Having to lean over to interact with your woman
>Having your chin on top of her head
>Inserting your penis into her in missionary position not at all for the sole purpose of procreation. Can't get your faces close easily.

Have fun with that height differential I guess.

>>10050432
/sci/ - Science & Math isn't actually /sci/ - Science & Math. Weird right? Who would have thought people would do this. Get together and feign a common interest in something they barely understand and don't want to.

>>10052160
you have to realize people are shit and discriminatory

Let's try and push "attraction equality" and tell hot young sjw women to date poor fat old men.

>>10052160
>I also disagree with your statement about women and 'blacks' and in fact, find it highly sexist and racist and offensive. Why do you choose to be this way, sir?
What? Men generally run things. Whites generally run things. Those two groups even keep complaining about it! That's because they won their way forward with pity.
>dude we shouldn't enslave blacks because it's uncool
>dude we should let women vote too because they deserve it
And what attitude let white men win their freedom (or maintain it, since it's never really been lost)?
>THE CROWN CAME FROM HEAVEN, CHOSEN BY GOD *guitar solo* *kills someone*
You want something, you take it. If you are given it you never really have it, because it can be taken from you again.

>>10052189
>run things

You mean like 2 small geographic regions? USA, Canada, and Europe are small in comparison to the world.


AFrica is many times the size of all white countries combined. It's like saying Japanese run the world. No one moves to low IQ race countries because they are shitholes. You could easily move to any number of countries not white majority.

>>10052185
I dont think that's the same as telling women that, basically, if they would date a man who is exactly the same as he is now but 6 inches taller, but they wouldn't date him as he is now, they're being ridiculous. Most women I've spoken to have agreed with me here too, idk if they just happened to be part of the half that don't care though.
A man and a woman who like each other and such shouldn't be restricted because of height. A lot of women get nervous when they like a dude who's smaller than them. this is socially conditioned it shouldn't exist.
in terms of SJW women, just call them heightist and hypocrites and that they don't have the moral upper ground, they buckle.

>>10052198
whining

>>10052200
?

>>10052201
No one cares about heightism or social bullshit in this thread. It's about scientific prediction using genetics.

The social hypocrisy of humans related to mate selection versus their outward virtue signaling of not judging people is well known and obvious.

>>10052189
>White men are free
Most white men get up every day to go where they're told, do what they're told when they're told, and eventually think what they're told. In return for their forced participation in this machine, they're kicked table scraps and given trinkets and toys. This shuts them up and they're trained to figure good enough, becoming angry at suggestions to the contrary.

This is the problem with the whole narrative, and modern feminism in general. It correctly describes woman's place in society (while exaggerating some aspects and claiming some are unique to women which simply are not, like a glass ceiling) but completely fails to consider a man and his condition. Instead they spin a bizarre web of tales portraying men as these mindless beasts bullshitting around the water cooler or whatever, then coming hope, grabbing the wife's ass and asking if the broad's got dinner ready yet. And therefore it fails to describe the broader system or make any meaningful commentary at all.

Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the Machine" does a better job describing woman's place in society and it doesn't even mention sex.

>>10052189
I'm not going to start hurting anyone if that's what you're implying. We can be reasonable about this

>>10052202
>No one cares about heightism or social bullshit in this thread. It's about scientific prediction using genetics.
Yes and it's very interesting.
>The social hypocrisy of humans related to mate selection versus their outward virtue signaling of not judging people is well known and obvious.
I think people are more reasonable than you're making them out to be, anon. Don't lose faith!

>>10052110
it's not like you have choice

>>10052207
What do you mean? I don't think it's a bad thing. Mate selection is a good right and leads toward maximal happy outcomes rather than randomness or selecting badly on purpose.

I'm a determinist, I don't judge humanity negatively or positively. They are all operating how they would in any "choice"

>>10052196
no shit white men don't run bangladesh, because there are no white men in that place to begin with
they only happen to run the most advanced, rich and powerful countries on the planet
>>10052203
yeah because other white men dominate them
and I'm not saying that the upper strata of civilization is some sort of 100% bure aryan wonderland, there are elite women and blacks as well, but if you rank the different groups white men come out on top
and you know how the white men on top came to lord over the white men on the bottom? Not because of the charity of someone else I can tell you. You're not going to win anything by campaigning for manlet rights or whatever.
>>10052204
you have 2 months to build your own trebuchet or you'll be sorry

>>10052211
height isn't a benefit or a drawback, though. this is a discrimination, its not similar for example to selecting for intelligence, which IS in fact preferable in all cases. It's not innate either it's a form of beauty standards that are causing it.
I see it as similar to black women being seen as less attractive because they're less "feminine" when analyzed under the current beauty standards. This is a form of discrimination that I do not believe deserves to exist.

>>10052217
what a hill to die on.

>>10052220
I mean, maybe. I don't see why it's wrong to think it's bad that people are being artificially screwed over, and that it should end.

>>10052223
"beauty standards" screeching should be reserved for SJW. I would recommend finding something more meaningful to get bothered over.

>>10052231
nah boi, there is nothing wrong with women being bigger than men in a relationship.

>>10052079
>Meanwhile, in the real world height has become the most important physical trait and probably the most important trait overall too.

nonsense, it is important when you are 175cm or less, which is entering abnormal territory, but if you are above that women mostly dont care

most important traits are money and confidence, in that order

>>10052214
>yeah because other white men dominate them
Bingo. What characterizes people of European and Asian descent is the proclivity for highly vertical control structures and accepting that social organization.

Look at anywhere else. We've tried to enslave them the same way, but ti simply doesn't stick. They won't do it, and probably can't. Prime examples are Latin America and Western Africa. Once the white presence disappears, the organization does as well. The same is not so for whites that are engulfed in this way, as the Roman empire did with many cultures.

>>10052263
half of men are less than 175cm, that's not abnormal territory.
also
>confirmed for 175cm

>>10052267
>Prime examples are Latin America and Western Africa.
you mean the location of several empires? Especially latin america

>>10052267
I love going completely off topic

It probably takes a lot of social ability and intelligence to manipulate people in an effective way without force. Creating nationalism, propaganda, and a reason you should be in control all require more intelligence to fool the people or get them to want to buy in to believe in something.

Such power structures probably don't work as well in low IQ societies because people won't buy into why it's a good idea or will think smaller scale.

Either way Rome didn't have much of a good time trying it in Germany.

>>10052272
Empire != strong vertical organization.

>>10052279
explain how

>>10050302
>polygenic/omnigenic traits like height and intelligence are impossible to predict from genome

Genetic Prediction for Human Height - SOLVED

>OK, height can be accurately predicted, but intelligence cannot, you racist


Yet another tenet of tabula rasa ideology has fallen. Machine learning will soon make short work of it entirely. Those Chinese superbabies are coming, how could Baizuo even compete?

>>10052276
I don't really "intelligence" is the right lens to view this through, and various traits and manner of functioning are more accurate descriptors. Either way, the bulk of what you've said is true to an extent. In some cases all you require is a large differential in intelligence, in others the process just has to be bootstrapped at some point and then carried forward with cross generation programming / cultural engineering, in other cases you need a population with high intelligence but low drive. The lattermost is ideal for highly organized societies.

>>10052289
the hilarious thing is it took like 3 years to get to this point. If you viewed it abstractly you'd see a complete erosion in everything they said almost immediately after saying it.

There is.. nothing but complete and total devastation of their beliefs.

so we're entering a world of gnomes or giants? or both?

>>10052294
sports is key to it as well in the modern world I think. Just the perfect meaningless outlet for tribalism. If bush was smart he would have spend half the rebuild budget on sports teams in Iraq.

>>10052217
Wrong. Height is highly correlated with success and intelligence.

>>10052308
yeah it's correlated
same with an earlier example in this thread of attraction to black women. Not the best examples for meaningless bias.

>>10052160
He's right, though. If you go public shouting "heightism" you are just lowering the social status of short men even more than previously. And men rely much more on their social status.

That is why normie short men make a big deal of pretending like height doesn't matter. It is to safeguard their social status, and it works.

>>10052308
Not intelligence
success is due to a heightist society. To say tall people are somehow 'innately' capable of being more successful is hilarious.

>>10052314
>>10052317
Wrong. Height genes have shown to have a dual benefit with bigger brains and efficient brain development.

>>10052326
this is not true, whats the point of lying

>>10052263
>175cm or less
That is literally half the population of men in the western world. Also, height still matters. A men who is 20cm taller than average is going to make a very good impression compared to an average man, even if the average man has him beat in many other areas.

>>10052330
just google height and intelligence correlation

I wonder how the results of

Is there less heightism in societies that use the metric system? Where do European women draw the manlet threshold in cm?

>>10052336
I am, and they're all saying if short height is due to lack of nutrition in development it causes lower IQ, but otherwise there's no correlation (people born "shorter" don't have lower IQ or gray/white matter).
which makes sense

>>10052341
>height and intelligence correlation
Northern Europe is more heightist than the US. Southern Europe a little bit less.

>>10052330
It is true. Why would enhanced body tissue development stop at the neck?? That makes zero sense.

>>10052350
Evolutionary you should expect the opposite. Tall men can easily reproduce. Short men need to excel, otherwise, thus should in theory be more intelligent.

>>10052350
Except it's not true
Taller people don't have larger heads or brains, that's why shorter people look like bobbleheads lol
Are you a woman? by the way you type you seem it.

>>10052355
tall men would reproduce because being tall, if it has no real functional advantage, would signal some other superiority

>>10052361
It's not all about size. You grow taller when you have enhanced body tissue development. Brain cells develop faster and stronger, just like the rest of the body.

>>10052355
When we analyze hunter gatherer societies the women don't show height preference.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/06/25/rsbl.2009.0342.short
This is also why male height has gone up and down throughout the paleolithic without preference in either direction.

>>10052369
So you may see some advancement during puberty, but once developed there would be no difference (and we don't see a correlation, unless the short height is due to malnutrition).

>>10052370
If we are discussing this because it means people will choose only tall embryos?

In that case there are much bigger worries such as parents making designer babies for their own benefit. Such as not caring about intelligence or capability but instead how cute, social, etc much like choosing a pet rather than choosing for place in society as an adult.

The biggest risk in the context of parental or societal choice is if your society is so fucking stupid or shit that they don't choose intelligence and grit but instead self-domesticate little pet kids.

>>10052374
>(and we don't see a correlation, unless the short height is due to malnutrition).
You keep saying that, but it's not true. Here's one study showing that there are literally genes that effect both height AND intelligence:

>In adulthood, a correlation was found between height and FSIQ in young adulthood and between height and VIQ in middle age. All correlations could be ascribed to genetic factors influencing both height and IQ.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17081263/

Designed babies would be boring. Having good genes and habits already affords one the ability to make children who are as gods among men.

>>10052355
No. Most men do reproduce, that includes most short men.
1. Tall men get the most beautiful women. And beauty correlates with IQ.
2. Intelligent men get the most beautiful women and beauty correlates with height.
For example, I'm a short high status man and my wife is taller than me and that was a conscious decision.
3. Taller parents have more sons. Shorter parents have more daughters. So the progeny of tall parents are more efficient at preserving the intelligence genes because on average men are slightly smarter than women.
It's not about who gets to reproduce. It's about who gets whom.

>>10052387
for instance if you go to a hood, how many will choose lebron james versus barack obama

>>10052395
Not really. I think it would depend entirely on the "base platform" one starts with. It will be interesting what happens when some parents realise that their base platform is not up to the task. Will they adopt?

>>10052387
>If we are discussing this because it means people will choose only tall embryos?
No, if anything we'll choose to make people smaller, as they are more optimized.
Either way, I fear the situation, as it's discrimination.

I've come to believe that offspring get their sexual behavioral traits mostly from the mother, and the bulk of their "core" mental function as well. It's a shame my mother's mitochondrial DNA dies with me, tracing back my family tree I don't see any unbroken female lines.

>>10052402
We just have to give the option of using celebrity eggs or sperm, but of the highest scoring celebs. All the dumb people will go for it.

>>10052387
the problem with designer babies is if they remove some important unforeseen part of human diversity
like imagine if you want to eliminate schizophrenia, but the schizo genes also have a 1/30000 chance of generating an artistic genius beside the 1/100 chance of schizophrenia? You'd rob humanity of that genius without ever knowing of it.

>>10052429
you'd also save tons of lives..

>>10052429
>all of those values and concerns
That part of man's history is over. We're worker bee slaves.

>>10052436
I'd easily trade 300 schizos for a genius. It's not like he doesn't give back to the rest of us.

>>10052429
Even bigger problem is the epidemic of unwanted disabled kids that will be born to these hyper hypergamous parents. Literally the worst combination.
Also once the practice become common place, people will start thinking like NAZIs, in terms of ubermench and subhumans.

The whole prospect makes me really anxious about having kids myself because I don't want them to experience that world.

>>10052387
Sounds good to me. The ultra elite get to kill off their entire genetic line by choosing traits for their children based entirely on pseudo-science. This has happened before, btw. New shitty medical practices come out but only the rich can afford them, so only their kids get fucked up by the time the practice is shown to be harmful.

>>10052440
No it's not. We are just in the dark ages of ethics, because we are in between the fall of religion as the source of ethics and the rise of the eventual new institutions that will replace
religion.

>>10052445
the cost of 300 schizos is immense
you can have geniuses without schizos

>>10052454
Religion isn't replaced, its name is just changed. Religious thought is deeply embedded in human functioning. Science has become the dominant religion and it's simply failed to develop suitable ethical structures.

As I said, that era is over for man. Only collapse and thensome will bring it back.

>>10052460
>As I said, that era is over for man
man specifically, not meaning "mankind" or "humans".
men are obsolete now

>>10052460
>says this
>future is fucking insanely awesome and better

oh woe, the steam engine marks the end of humanity

>>10052460
>Science has become the dominant religion
This is the dumbest thing I've read today.

>>10052464
Meaning humans.

Artificial wombs and assembly-line style production of humans is on the horizon. I recommend watching Ergo Proxy, or any of the other countless sci-fi stories that dealt with societies that created people for specific purposes only when there was a need for this existence. A raison d'etre.

>>10052455
>the cost of 300 schizos is immense
the gain of a genius is immense
>you can have geniuses without schizos
yeah sure, but it's an example, and not something you can scientifically study without extraordinary skill of observation. Consider how difficult just approving a new drug is, then instead of looking for basic medical symptoms you have to analyze personality and social roles and everything, it's impossible

we already have a mile long list of unforeseen consequences that technological advancements have had, especially in the biological field. If you're going to start playing with demographic alterations I 100% guarantee you that something will be lost, and you might not even find out in hindsight this time.

>>10052467
Doesn't make sense.

>>10052468
Noted, but disregarded.

>>10052471
I think you vastly overestimate how many scizos are geniuses versus just suffering from a disease.

>>10052481
it was an example completely pulled out of my ass, don't focus on schizophrenia and genius
might as well be fat distribution and niceness of women to children or whatever the fuck

>>10052481
Like for instance depending on the nature of it, some things associated with scizo can be good. Even in that case you would still limit the risk by only allowing some through.

The arguments of lack of diversity or losing good genes are pretty stupid. In that they fail when analyzed with a smart selection process. The criticism only is valid if the selection process is stupidly done. Which is solved by doing it intelligently instead of not doing it at all.

>>10052488
Yes, such cases and situations would be represented in the selection algorithm. The goal is to look for such correlations. It's not that they would ignore them. It's also not like there would be less genetic diversity. In fact genetic diversity probably goes up since it might be very rare genes that gain in re

Wrong
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/06/25/354951
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/06/25/355057

>>10051993
Height has nothing to do with intelligence you utter retard.
Sam harris followers still retarded as usual

>>10052505
lel, screeching

check the genetics journal who just published this

>>10052512
So what? My point remain.
The debate isn't done, far from it.
Especially when we discover that many GWAS are crap, see >>10052501

>>10052498
>Yes, such cases and situations would be represented in the selection algorithm.
how fucking pervasive is this selection algorithm? I'm not talking about the genetic side, but the trait side that's often not possible to properly quantify or even identify in the first place. Do they just make an infinitely long list of every possible human trait (infinitely long because the human traits are made up and vague, genius isn't something like receptor density or average lifespan)?

>>10052516
>the debate isn't done

screeching babies don't matter

>>10052527
Enjoy ignoring sources shattering your delusional world:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/06/25/354951
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/06/25/355057

>>10052532
>https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/06/25/354951
it just makes me laugh to think you imagine that as a refutation

>>10052536
If you can't read, that's your problem.
Point is that comparing different geographical population with GWAS is worthless.
Literally proven.

>>10052545
oh, good thing you brought it up. Would have used the results on nigerians otherwise.

You are arguing for more data, which is what everyone wants.

>>10052593
note in case it seems weird, I personally have nothing to do with the study in OP. I am simply saying that the refutation is nothing surprising to anyone and doesn't really change much. As long as the selection function works on a control sample accurately it's fine. If it doesn't work on non-represented samples that's something already known about GWAS.

>>10052593
>results on nigerians otherwise
Post them, I love making hereditarians seething

so how will this play out is the unanswered question

>>10050302
This woman is devastatingly cute, I just don't even know.

Good news. I fucking hate manlets so much. I'm not a sexist. I'm not a racist. I'm not a homophobe. But I'm proud to be a rabid heightist.

>>10052979
why?

>>10050432
My thought exactly.
Unless that's the margin for error, which it isn't.

>>10053355
must be bait

>>10052978
>red-brunette
>sloping forehead
>double-chin genetics
>no T and no A

>>10054424
>Brunette
>Slightly upturned nose with nonlinear slight positive bridge curvature
>Eastern European facial structure and skin tone
>Probably will do alright in the cold
>Probable slight occipital bun (aware but not self centered and sociopathic, as with a prominent occipital bun)
>Attractive hands suitable for fine work
>Proportioned breasts
>Upper thigh and ass structure implies smaller hips and therefore more efficient for movement, but probably not infeasible for childbirth
>Feminine but not fragile
>Features imply durable bones and joints, and superior Eastern European mitochondrial DNA
>Active and possibly fun to do stuff with
Looks fine to me.

>>10054449
>Eastern European facial structure
What the fuck does that even mean? Are you talking about Slavs? If so, no. That bitch does not look Slavic at all.

>>10054573
It means Eastern European, ie, Eurasian with the precursors to what became French, Italians, and so forth migrating through, and a degree of Slavic features. eg, her eyes and ears. Women from this region will occasionally also have black hair, but these general features.

>>10054573
And indeed, after scrolling through many images of (sexy) Slavic women I've reaffirmed my initial disposition some many fold, she is quite Slavic.

>>10054798
nope, you're just retarded.

that is not a slavic look.

>>10054819
Incorrect my man. Eurasian Slavic.

>>10054449
>>10054585
>slavic features
Take a closer look at that forehead. Woman's got more Jewish blood in her than a mohel on sabbath day.

>>10054834
There are a number of differences.

>>10054834
you're stupid
>jewish blood
lol

>>10052182
They still need help grabbing stuff on the top shelf.

>>10052984
its selected for in aggressive male populations, Europeans especially. I would imagine being a manlet in 500 BCE Denmark was really bad for your family and it would be preferable if you got killed in an internecine dispute with your brothers or cousins. Just think about it. Manlets compromise fitness for everyone else. Its only in environments or populations where it isn't extremely deleterious (see: Med/MENA) where it just wouldn't matter too much. The problem with lanklets is that they're literally deformed
>>10052532
fucking retard

>>10054832
>Incorrect my man. Eurasian Slavic.

eurasian is just a broad term for any caucasian and asian mix.

she could be eurasian. ill give you that. but she definitely does not look slavic.

the slavs are a european tribe where the women look more like this.

this woman is quintessentially Slavic with heritage from northwestern Ukraine.

>>10054914
can you shut the fuck up you stupid incel faggot, and actually discuss the OP and rebut the idiot in this thread you people are so fucking disgusting and libidinous go wack off to eastern euro subhuman sex slaves if this is all you can think about. That woman is a mixture of Kievan-Rus nordic, Germanic, Slavic and Baltic genetics. All attractive slavic women are.

>>10054878
Short men have a higher hunting success rate in hunter gatherer societies, though.
Now as we enter into this era of genemodding, short people will only be selected for as there is no drawbacks to them but massive advantages of having a physically smaller population.
Manlets are going to dominate the world.

>>10054920
>an you shut the fuck up you stupid incel faggot
im not the one who put the thread offtopic you fucking retard.

>>10054920
>libidinous
I had to get out my dictionary, though one may figure from the "libid". Your substantive post is appreciated. Oveall what you're seeing is a bunch of broad stimulant herbs combined with MAOI / cytochrome P450 inhibitors + sleep deprivation. But indeed, it's time to move on. It has been expressed that I like that this woman and women like her exist.

>sex slaves
Feel free to participate in my trauma programming thread.
>>>/x/21555007

>>10054842
looks a lot like britt baron from GLOW

>>10054925

Holy shit you're retarded.

>>10054932
>Feel free to participate in my trauma programming thread.
(Which concerns all forms of trauma based dissociation and compartmentalization programming, Monarch programming, the notion of the "Manchurian candidate", its connection satanism in medieval Europe, cult indoctrination tactics, and the overall history and role its played in the development of the miserable reality experience every day in this modern hell.)
People need to know how this shows really run.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29588506
Scientist can't even make a correct heritability estimate, it has been proven to be biased.
How can we even do eugenics right? We can't control the environment of humans.

>>10054942
Nothing written is false. Stay mad

>>10054942
This one is a total neb that can't into bipedal locomotion. His foolishness is profound.

>>10054973
Also, he probably has a smaller penis than me.
So there.

so many stupid manlets in this thread

>>10054914
she's not

>>10054925
food efficiency doesn't matter. We over eat already.

>>10054950
scientific studies, meaning you need huge data sets, and orgonoid style investigations. GWAS isn't the be all end all, but it's an incredibly key point of study for understanding genetics because it gives you a treasure map of where to look. It's also likely further automated and mass-scale research would be necessary given the huge complexity of genetics. Such as industrial scale orgonoid testing or some other idea.

>>10055033
Stay mad
>>10055050
much more than food efficiency, anon

This bullshit "manlet" meme is probably just another Boris trick, yet another angle to create a bunch of angry young men.
The internet was a mistake.

>>10055064
insults are so effective though

>>10055062
why would i be mad when im 6ft3 and my height alone makes me a chick magnet?

ever hear of the phrase "tall, dark and handsome"?

retard

>>10055080
Good for you.
That doesn't change anything.
Retard.

Chad is always at least 6 feet tall.

>>10055090
Not anymore lel
That's a socially conditioned preference anyway
I'm sorry, but you all said "manlets, when will they learn?"
Well, we went out and learned and rendered you obsolete and inefficient. It's just the way it is.

>>10055080
retard

>>10055096
whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? I can't hear you from up here.

>>10055101
desu i'm not small enough, not optimized at all. I'd need to be about 10 inches shorter to be the perfect male.

at my university, all the hot tall white volleyball chicks are dating black athletes from the football and basketball teams.

those beautiful tall long-legged athletic beauties are getting plowed by big black cocks.

>>10055127
Whats with the racist cuck stuff?

>>10055135
Boris just showing himself.

>>10055135
Why is it racist? It's just an observation brah. Should I post photos?

>>10055135
they're not smart enough to discuss the OP and don't care about thinking because they're engineers or CS people

>>10055148
idk what that is
>>10055152
don't act like you dont know what you're doing right now.
we'll find the genes for dick size anyway.
the future is hung tiny dudes plowing amazons and you will never be stop me from making this a reality

>>10052203
You probably thought this was real good didn't you?
It's absolute tripe and you should kys yourself for writing it.

>>10055127
My cock got so hard thinking about that.

>>10055253

mine too anon. im stroking my cock right now.

>>10055253
>>10055562
kill yourselves
or at least stop posting

>>10055594
Its just some stupid black retard screaming about how genetics isn't real. He's been spaming alot of gene denial right now.

>>10055080
Retard. Only retards like girls.

>>10052279
They had vertical organisations. Not my fault you are so insecure about it.

>>10055201
Welcome my son. Welcome to the machine.

>>10055776
Vertical organization != strong vertical organization.

I'm not sure what's the matter with you, but you pretty much just said a mid size building is the same as a skyscraper. Now whether they ever would've developed similar structures, I don't know. I do know Europe already had, and Latin America has been repeatedly used, disrupted, and dominated as a result.

>>10052263
My crush called me short even though I'm taller than her and she rejected me, so no. Money and confidence are not eveything.

>>10057224
>My crush reject me and marry 5'2" man

>>10057264
6'2 man, not 5'2.

>>10057328
Yes, guy was 5'2" Girl begin short and guy begin almost heigth that girl.

>>10052099
>and assuming women have no height preference

Of course they have preference. It's just that 4chan redpillcel types who never actually interact with women conflate female preferences with female standards by using cherrypicked online dating examples (the only knowledge of women publicly available to them), while overestimating their own attractiveness to the kind of women they desire and denying that they're doing to the same themselves.

In any case, there have been interesting studies on height preference done that show the standards are closer to height differential rather than flat height, i.e. women prefer men 6 inches taller than themselves, not necessarily 6 feet tall.

And these numbers make a lot more sense given that height averages across most populations reflect it almost exactly.

I'm 5'6" and have mostly had women who are the same height, or slightly taller attracted to me.

Though sample size is relatively low, and study is strictly retrospective.

>>10057360
Even that is a social construction, the male taller norm isn't seen in all cultures. Some cultures, the women are just as likely to pick a man shorter than her as taller

>>10057574
>Some cultures, the women are just as likely to pick a man shorter than her

If that were true, over time it would lead to men and women being of comparable height in these cultures, which is simply is not reflected in the average height of any population on the planet. The overwhelming female preference is objectively and irrefutably for men taller than themselves.

>>10050453
no trait better correlates with intelligence than height so I would say no trait is more important to the modern human than height as now more so than ever is intelligence theoretically rewarded, as opposed to those who were least likely to be eaten by sabre tooth tigers once upon a time.

so no manlet, maybe learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence

>>10052059
define "modern" if you think the average person need be concerned with their ability to be catapulted into space in feeble tin cans called modern rocket ships.
this isnt something our civiliztion has evolved enough to have impact the average person or even 1% of the population yet, and by the time it does reach a greater percent , height will not be a deciding factor in your passport approval to space.

>>10057582
They pair off as though it were random, it doesn't mean that over time it would level out the average heights as the average male height is still taller.
>>10057613
This has to do with nutrition its already been discussed itt
Your height is meaningless, get over it