/sci/ - Science & Math

Damn... people will grasp at anything to give them hope.

I'm 6'0

>>4697784

>Mfw I'm 5'9".
>Genius incoming

Tesla was 6'6"

Geniuses tend to be 5'9, prefer the color green, and keep bags of their own feces stored in the freezer. If you meet all three trends, then it's highly likely that you are in fact a genius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence

>mfw i'm 5'6 and have a masters in pure math and was on the top of my class and will be soon working on my masters in comp sci

>>4697805
Sure is manlet overcompensation in here
You probably have plenty of time to spend studying since you're not out getting laid and partying

>>4697805

>And you'll never have a girlfriend.
>5'6"

>>>/fit/

5' 11" master race, reporting in.

>>4697827
>>4697832

my face when both of you are butthurt. partying is a fucking waste time, and I already have a girlfriend

>>4697832
I want a girl that will love me for who I am and is not shallow.

5'6''

perfect physique, perfect health, perfect weight to strength ratio.
and i'll even live longer because of it.

this is how tall humans are supposed to be

5'6'' master race
y'all jelly

5'6''. Sure, I wish I had another couple inches, but I also enjoy being comfortable in airplane seats and small cars.

I can't believe I'm taller than all you fucks and I'm a girl. So much for not feeling like a giant.

>>4698817
tall girls are sexy

i like to climb up their bodies and make a base camp at their breasts.

>>4698817
its cool, for real humans (6'3 reporting in) tall girls are awesome. current girlfriend is 5'4 and i feel like im making out with a midget. plus, those awesome long legs

>>4698825
>real humans
>implying you're not an overgrown freak

>>4698832
see correlations between height and income, and height and attractiveness.

>mfw i love being tall and able to see over peoples heads
>mfw my feet fucking stick out the bottom of beds and not being comfy in plane seats

it averages out

>>4698825
>>4698822
I always feel kind of odd when I date guys because they're usually the same height/shorter, and girls are "supposed" to be shorter than guys - I wonder why most men prefer that? Just because it's the norm or is it some evolutionary reason?

I was hoping once I specialized into my field there would be less short guys that act all bitter toward me (I think maybe they feel emasculated?) but oh well.

>>4698847
guys don't care

it's girls that get wrapped up in height

mfw almost everyone in this thread is 5'6, including me.

>>4698851
this

they probably feel like you see them as inadequate.

>>4697872
>>4697872

>>4698855
Except I don't, so it's just a vicious cycle. If they stopped thinking about it and acting all agitated, then I would be more likely to act more nicely toward them in return. I mean, I really try, but it's hard to carry on a conversation with someone who keeps cold-shouldering you. Especially annoying if it's a lab partner or group member. It's not all short guys, obviously. But it seems to be a trend.

>>4698847
idk, I like it because it makes me feel protective.

If im holding you in my arms and Im looking down at you, Im going to feel like Im the man, and thog protekt woman! If the heights were reversed, I'd feel like you were the more dominant in the relationship physically (not emotionally or anything else), and personally that would feel weird. Speaking in broad terms, I would guess that guys would prefer to be dominant physically in a relationship, and girls submissive physically. (Cue all romances of being saved by manly muscular men). Id say thats more evolution than anything, but thats not my field. Your guess of emasculation would be pretty bang on i think.

>>4698874
that's american society for ya.
every image of a "couple" ever shown anywhere has a large muscle-y man and an impossibly proportioned, slightly shorter woman.

everyone is self conscious, if they don't match that, they think that everyone else looks down on them for it.

it is a vicious cycle, you're right, but the solution is to just not buy into it.

>>4698877
Im the 6'3 guy that wrote this. Id agree with the others, height really isnt a deciding factor for most guys

>>4698874
how tall are you?

>>4698877
That actually brings up a pretty interesting point. I do tend to take on a more dominant role in some relationships (currently a domme actually). Most women tend to lean more submissive relationship-wise, I wonder if height has any correlation with that?

>>4698894
A little shy of 6', and that's if I decide to wear flats.

>>4698890
>>4698890


maybe for you, but don't think you speak for all guys.

I'm 5'6'' and wouldn't give a shit if someone was 10 feet tall.
as long as they're intelligent and friendly

>>4698890
oh whoops, thought you said "is" not "isn't"

my bad

>>4698899
Yeah I wouldnt be at all surprised if there was a correlation between the bigger person taking a dominant role. Also, nice height. My one rule for my next girlfriend is she has to be at least close to my height lol...too many neckaches atm

>>4698904
hahaha no worries, i was wondering what you were going on about

More than the population average. Height and intelligence correlate, and geniuses are much smarter than the average population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence

>>4698847
>I always feel kind of odd when I date guys because they're usually the same height/shorter, and girls are "supposed" to be shorter than guys - I wonder why most men prefer that? Just because it's the norm or is it some evolutionary reason?

Evolutionary reason. This finding is made universally among human populations.

The causes for this is not so difficult to explain. Taller males are stronger and smarter, and for those reasons more likely to be of higher mate quality.

>>4698887
There is no such solution for it. It is part of human nature. Rather difficult to socialize humans to be different. Easier to alter genetics. But, taller men still have more children. So, there is still selection for this trait. The result being that the female mate selection for tall mates will continue to be there, and the average height will increase unless there are selection forces that work against it (such as short women getting more children, which wud perhaps result in a cancellation of selection pressure or in increased sexual Sexual dimorfism).

WHO DO YOU GUYS LOVE MORE HERE AT SCI
HITLER OR EINSTEIN?

>>4699018
Invincible robotic Tesla.

>>4699018
FUCK YOU I LOVE PENGUIN

>>4699012

got any citations for that or are you just making shit up because you wish it was true?

>>4699049
this. i've never heard of anything like that either.

>>4699049
not op but think about it. in past times, bigger/stronger man would = better hunter, why do you think girls prefer guys in good shape? (and vice verca, being in good shape=healty=more fertile). better hunter = better chance of survival for offspring, so more desirable mate.

obviously nowadays thats no longer exactly the case, intelligence and personality play a much bigger role than they used to, you dont need to be strong to provide a good income, and the importance of having father stick around would outweigh his ability to hunt on a savanah.

I would GUESS the preference for height is still there, but would be easily superceded by other desirable traits, and likewise would not be enough to sustain interest by itself as its not the sole indicator of a good mate, just a guideline.

>>4699065
>>4699065

that's not a citation, that's still just you thinking things work that way. where's your proof?

also, if that were true what you're saying, shortness would have been bred out long ago, and there would be no such thing in males or females.

why is average height 5'5'' if "that's too short to be attractive?"

>>4699065
actually speed, long distance running and intelligence made us into better predators.

and shorter people have more endurance for those kinds of things than taller people in a lot of situations.
hm...

Obviously you have not heard that quote about standing on the shoulders of giants.
They were much bigger than the average man is

>>4699076

>>4699068
>implying that 5'5" isn't the perfect height for a male

>>4699073
Short gits are slower and not as fighty.
A few thousand years ago shorties would be forever virgins and never taint the gene pool with their disability due to the fact that they would be steamrolled by bigger males if they tried to lay a finger on any of the females.
It's only now in this modern world of "fairness" and non-violence where short shits have a chance, although it's small because they're still ugly as hell

>>4699081
I said it was average, take from that what you want

>>4699081
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
10/10, would laugh again

>>4699082
lol you just don't know what you're talking about do you...

it's funny because none of it is true!

go read a book you ignormaus

>>4699089
shit, ignoramus.
well, isn't that a word to spell wrong...

also>>4699081
>>4699088
obvious samefag

keep trying to think you're superior because you happen to have a few inches over other guys.

hope you enjoy having a less functional circulatory system and going limp at 40

>>4699086
That makes me happy, all the guys in my area are gigantic though :(

>>4699088
It's nice being able to kiss someone without craning my neck and standing on my tippytoes.

>>4699081
Sorry, but no woman taller than 5 foot would be interested in such a tiny tiny tiny man

tall guys - dicks look smaller
short guys -dicks look larger
this could explain why there are so many aggressive tall men...

>>4699095
5'2.75, actually

>>4699098
Is it true that dwarf women have beards?

>>4699091
actually, while it is true that taller men have more strain on their muscles and circulation, going limp is caused by a variety of factors, including testosterone fluctuations, dietary health and if the woman hes is fugly as hell or not.
of course, being overly tall doesn't really help...

>>4699104
I'm not a dwarf, but I would very much like to have a beard.

healthiest heights are between 5-2 and 5-9

anything under that and you're probably starting with the dwarfism issues, anything over that and your heart has to work way harder, meaning less circulation to muscles, organs, brain etc. and hurting overall function

>>4699068
definitely need a citation on that average height claim lol. never said short people werent attractive, just taller people were more so. also, being taller is definitely correlated with better nutrition, and no I cant be bothered to find that citation, look at the difference between poor countries and rich countries. so being taller could = better diet = being affluent and therefore a better mate

>>4699073
ok, how about more leverage for throwing spears? and longer legs for running? maybe endurance, but taller people are faster. also see that correllation between height and intelligence...

>>4699076
fucking lol'd

>>4698899

are you sure you're not reading too much into things?

I don't cold shoulder people because they're tall...I certainly wouldn't try to get into a relationship with a girl taller than me, though.

>>4699120
the points your talking about have nothing to do at all with height.
spears were AFTER we became somewhat intelligent, and back then 5 feet was impressive.

tallest countries are in african regions, so that whole "more success-more tall" thing is absolute bullshit.

and taller people aren't always faster. they do tire faster though.

ITT small people being butthurt about being short. it doesnt fucking matter. want a correlation? in personal experience i've noticed short people have retarded amounts of energy, and tall people are usually more chillout and relaxed. Ive also noticed that neither have an impact on their ability to get a gf. so everyone chill the fuck out

im off to bed

>>4699120
correlation between height and intelligence is ridiculous.

intelligence is caused by a multitude of genetic and environmental factors, being taller may be indicative of some of those genes in a small portion of the population, but by no means does taller=smarter. that's just ridiculous.

>>4699126
I don't think so. I am a very friendly, polite person in general, and unless it's just a really weird coincidence that has occurred, shorter men (and by this I mean "noticeably shorter") really tend to be more, pardon the wording, short with me. I approach people the same way, especially in an academic setting, and these guys just have a higher ratio of being dicks or dismissive to me, enough for me to notice and question "What's going on here?"

>>4699145

explain "being a dick"

>>4699139
It may have something to do with nutrition.

The better your nutrition as you develop, the taller you become; it seems that brain development would probably follow the same pattern, though they're not correlative to each other, they come from the same source.

>>4699145
>she's really tall
>probably not going to work out between us
>might as well treat her "whatever"

look at it this way, they consider you a potential mate because you're female, and possibly attractive, but are frustrated because they think the height thing is a big issue.

also, some shorter men have a napoleon complex, and feel very emasculated by taller people, especially women.

not all men, mind you, but some.

>>4699150
your height is pre-determined by genetics, if you are undernourished you may become shorter, but if you eat a lot you're not going to become taller then you could have been..

>>4699149
A greater tendency to shut down any of my ideas or suggestions, a greater tendency to be bossy (in the bad way), a greater tendency to talk down to me / treat me like an idiot.

It's quite possible that those with a complex about their height might simply be trying to compensate for their 'inadequacy' by working harder.

>>4697784
correlation is .15...and not even consistent among countries, barely worth noting

>>4699155
on behalf of all men short/average men, sorry about those guys. napoleon complex is common among countries with heavy media influence saying taller is better.

i'm 5ft 6 inches and I wouldn't mind going out with someone your height.
I mean, you probably shouldn't wear heels but other than that..

>>4699132
youre just talking out your ass. its all relative. if you were taller, you get better leverage on the spear, it goes further. also, to forestall your next point, the bigger you are, the more muscle you have. if im bigger than someone, it takes more muscle to move me around. if im exactly porportional to a smaller person, I still have a larger muscle than them because im bigger. as for the africa bullshit, look within a population. better fed (good food, not more) will be taller on average.

citations, because fuck you

http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living-pictures/12-big-and-little-facts-about-your-height.aspx
#/slide-13
http://www.grumpychimp.com/stuff/tall-people-are-better.php
http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0691.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14233727

every single one says taller is better. every. single. one.
suck it

>>4699155
I hate to even mention this, but are they just sexist? Also agree with the other guy. If theyve written you off as a potential mate for whatever personal issues they have, they may just not be as interested in putting effort into the relationship. So...theyre just assholes :D

>>4699170
first link-error
second link- are you fucking joking? grumpychimp? that's a fucking blog. confirmation bias much?

third link- another shitty blog site, but hey, all it says is "tall people sometimes earn more"
still bad with that confirmation bias though

fourth link- "in some places, being shorter makes you more successful, in others, being taller does"

that one actively goes against your point! and its the only reputable source you have too!

lol be butthurt moar

>>4699170
And from the same links you gave:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14220382
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11628266

What a fucking dumbass. Stay mad, ostrich boy.

>>4699165
I know, and I realize that it's not all of short men that behave like this. It may be the equivalent of the pressure women feel to be the media's image of the "perfect" woman.

>>4699177
That very well could be, but it does seem to have a greater occurrence in men of shorter stature. It does seem slightly odd that just because a person isn't relationship material they would be unable to have a civil professional relationship with them, but yeah. To each his own. Men are pretty complicated as well. :)

>>4699183
>dumbass
>i did say earlier about less circulation to the brain

>>4699170
also you.
taller people have different proportions than short/average people.
all your points are based on "what if we took a short guy, and just made him bigger"

>>4699188
women treat men they wouldn't consider a relationship for like shit as well. its a human thing, don't know why.
sex is always that elephant in the room in any male-female interaction, and it certainly does affect our thought processes. chemicals and pheromones and all that.

>>4699182
lol confirmed troll
the working link, just for you, as your short and unintelligent brain obviously cant tell how to make a link work. i apologize for assuming you would be intelligent enough to get there on your own.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living-pictures/12-big-and-little-facts-about-your-height.aspx

also, yes its a blog, but its fully referenced. You fail, sir.

quote from the BBC article:
To be tall you've got to live in environments conducive to good growth”
Prof Noel Cameron, Loughborough University

this directly proves my point about being taller = better mating prospects. being taller means you come from the rich tribe with good food, instead of the shit tribe with bad food and short people. also corrects your retarded average height claim, its 5'9

>>4699202
>cherry picks from article
>this proves (COMPLETELY UNRELATED POINT)
are you fucking dense?

>human average height is 5.9!
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
go read a book

>>4699190
>>4699183
>>4699182
butthurt midgets. smaller people have higher chance of heart disease, being stupid, and being poor. being tall confirmed for master race

http://www.grumpychimp.com/stuff/tall-people-are-better.php
>mfw im 6'2, and want a gf around 5'9 ._.

>>4699202
blogs are opinion articles, they cherry pick arguments too.
just because multiple people have your opinion doesn't make it right, that's called confirmation bias, you should stop it

>>4699208
>>4699208

that same fucking grumpychimp article

THATS

A

FUCKING

BLOG

YOU

DENSE

IDIOTS

>>4699206
>>4699206
you really are retarded arent you? its okay midget, im sure some tiny girl will want you someday...unless she gets stolen by a taller guy....

>>4699170

Not guy your responding to , but 90 percent of that stuff is just perception from other people. Even parent's/teachers pay attention more to taller children then shorter children which could at least partially explain the dismal .15 intelligence correlation.

Basically taller people are more successful because everyone thinks taller people are better,which makes makes taller people more successful , you get the idea.

Sort of a related observation, and rather than start a somewhat pointless thread, i'll piggyback off of this one.

I've noticed that a lot of my fellow students whom I consider the more intelligent often have longer hair...sort of interesting.

What's your hair length? Major?

dont worry sci youll get taller by the time youre done high school

Read through all your "citations">>4699208
>>4699202

this is what they say

>taller people can make more
>if you eat well while your growing, your growth wont be stunted
>taller people are attractive in certain regions
>shorter people are healthier when it comes to cancer risk and some diseases


(first and third are based on location and culture, other two are genetics and nutrition)

point is

there's no fucking difference beyond societal reaction. claiming to be better or worse than anyone depending on height just makes you enormously fucktarded.

>>4699222
>>4699222
also, your citations are shit by the way

go find reputable sites and articles, not fucking blogs and opinion sites you dumbasses

okay, since youre retarded, heres the LINKS from the blog. THOSE were what were worthwhile

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/02/cb.tall.people/index.html
http://www.impactlab.net/2007/03/10/math-study-worlds-most-beautiful-people/
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2002/03/short_changed.html
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/heightsalary.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n114_v29/ai_15622157/
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20000112/women-tall-men

i threw in some extras I found, enjoy =)inigsgn 1st

>>4699183
>but muh nuts

>>4699227
first link - societal, nothing to do with genetics
second link - nothing to do with height, men was "chest to girth" ratio. it DOES say "perfect height" was 5.9, but realize, all of this article was opinion.

third link- same societal thing as the first one, are you even trying?

fourth link- this is the third time you've used that societal salary thing. FIND A NEW ARGUMENT.

fifth link- "attraction is based on personal height" so, nothing to do with their height.

sixth link - a terrible study, just 100 men in one country? wheres the control? where's the correlation to other cultures?
and all it says is "some tall men have more children"

dear god.

you are just wrapped up in your cherry picking arguments. and youre not even that good at it!

>>4699227
someone keeps referencing some nature article done in poland by an English uni, but I cant find it. would probably be helpful

>>4699233
oh, excuse me, i made an error on that one.
not 100 men, it WAS 4,500. but still from just one culture and even just one area.

>>4699233
from 6th link
R.I.M. Dunbar, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, England, and two Polish colleagues recently conducted a study of 4,500 Polish men between the ages of 25 and 60. What they found, the authors write in this week's issue of the journal Nature, is that "taller men are reproductively more successful than shorter men, indicating that there is active selection for stature in male partners by women."

you cant read very well.

>>4699240
neither can you. see "ONLY ONE CULTURE AND AREA" "NO CONTROL" "NO CORRELATION TO OTHER CULTURAL PREFERENCE"

>>4699233
the societal salary thing is rather important. taller men earn more, and are thus more attractive.

>>4699243

"in some areas, tall men earn more"

>this must mean that tall men everywhere are smarter/stronger/more attractive!

you are just a fucking idiot.
i'm done with you.

>>4699242
lol I wrote that before your apology, forgive me, please.

also referring to the study of the polish people, considering it was done by a university professor at a respectable uni, and was published in a very respected science journal, I think the study was probably done correctly.

>>4699245
>this must mean that tall men everywhere are smarter/stronger/more attractive!

took you long enough

>>4699246

he went around just one area and culture and asked men "how many kids do you have?"

that is hardly indicative of either good peer reviewed science or of global preferences.

you eat more paint

>>4699249

>>4699251
>>4699252
its cool, you keep feeling smug short person. Im feeling alpha as fuck after all this. Ill just go enjoy my higher salary and reproductive prospects. You can keep lying to yourself all you want, it wont change a thing ;)

>>4699202
>>4699202

this guy here
"to be tall, you need to be in areas conducive to growing tall"
that means "you can't be starving"

it does NOT MEAN, "taller people are more successful than shorter people"

this whole thread you've just been really stretching for the tiniest shreds of anything to support your terrible argument.

go sir, are a moron.

>>4699260
>higher salary
ho ho, you're an idiot, move out of the states and that's not true

>better reproductive prospects
trololol much?

>>4699262
*sigh* fuck it, if you honestly cant link the bits together by now then youre a lost cause

>go sir, are a moron.
>fullretardshortperson.jpg

ITT: people trolling short guys with obviously false arguments.
how they can't see this, ill never know. maybe because they're butthur at the stupidity?

10/10, well done

>>4699268
you don't link little bits together to make your argument, you get solid proof.

if i was doing what you're doing I would be saying
"tall people nowhere have no endurance, are all prone to heart attacks and all get cancer super easily"
which is obviously untrue.

why do you think its okay to do the same just because its FOR your argument? that's just both bad science and being an idiot.

>>4699275
linking little bits together is called "cherry picking"
or "confirmation bias"
in other words, not a good way to argue. and usually creates fictitious results.

>>4699271
Thank you, *bows*

but seriously, height doesnt matter, at all. ATTITUDE towards height matters ;)

im out, night fellas, twas fun sparring

>>4699279

yes, i'm butthurt
you moron.

>>4699278
also have learnt something tonight. I have a question then, away from the discussion.
If I were to say "It requires good nutrition to become tall"
and "It requires wealth to provide good nutrition"
and "Women desire prosperous mates, as it is better for their offspring", all of which are true in their own right, would it be cherry picking to conclude from this that women would have an increased desire for tall men, as the tallness would be an indicator of increased prosperity? Honest question, im an eng, not a sci, dont know much about bias

>>4699305
nutrition in certain areas is far removed from wealth, such as the first world, where there are many social programs.

you will not grown taller than you could have genetically by eating more, however you could shrink by starving. thats the only correlation through height and nutrition.

not that "it requires nutrition to become tall" more like, "as long as you aren't starving, you will become as tall as you could be"

>>4699305
also, being tall doesn't relate to increased prosperity.
It means you are tall, that's pretty much it.

there are plenty of broke ass or starving tall people, and many short people as well.

>>4699320
awesome, thanks for the answer.

how would you construct a legitimate argument then? for the sake of this discussion, that shorter/taller is sexier

>>4699325
you can't
its about personal preference.

>>4699328
kk, was just picking a topic. how would you construct an argument to remove bias?

>>4699331
basically you look at all the viewpoints and try to make a judgement based on the information, not on your personal feelings.

if you're tall, and you only look at data that says "tall people rule" while ignoring anything that says "no they dont," because of your personal feelings, that's bias.

>>4699335
lol fair enough, thanks

Height: Jew

See: Einstein, Feynman etc.

I'm 6'3".
Just saying.

>>4699049
>got any citations for that or are you just making shit up because you wish it was true?

For which part? Everything that i wrote is common knowledge to any evolutionary psychologist. I'm not sure which part u doubt.

>>4699065
>I would GUESS the preference for height is still there, but would be easily superceded by other desirable traits, and likewise would not be enough to sustain interest by itself as its not the sole indicator of a good mate, just a guideline.

The preference for height is still there becus it is still relevant. Taller people enjoy all kinds of advantages. Even if those were purely becus women prefer taller males and they offer no benefit besides that, evolution for height wud continue. This is how sexual selection works. It sometimes result in run-away selection for no other reason, sometimes even to direct disadvantage for the male, i.e., a peacock's tail effect.

Even if a trait such as height is no longer useful in our society, women will continue to like taller men simply becus it takes a long time to get rid of the preference when it is genetic. To get rid of it, there has to be no benefits of being taller, but given what i wrote above, this will continue to be the case.

>>4699213
>Not guy your responding to , but 90 percent of that stuff is just perception from other people. Even parent's/teachers pay attention more to taller children then shorter children which could at least partially explain the dismal .15 intelligence correlation.

>Basically taller people are more successful because everyone thinks taller people are better,which makes makes taller people more successful , you get the idea.

I'd bet that there is no evidence that getting more attention from teachers increases intelligence of the pupils. If there were such evidence, i wud have read about it. That's another "X" hypothesis from nurture only thinking. Nurture only thinking usually is just plain wrong as twin studies have demonstrated again and again.

>>4699305
This is correct reasoning. One can reason like that about many things. The results of such thinking is a lot of predictions that follow. Many of them have been confirmed. Isn't evolutionary psychology wonderful? :)

>>4697832
6'2"

>being more than 13 years old
>caring about height
>/sci/
>2012

i shiggity your diggity