4 ms·

> The problem with using height is that there is already evidence that taller people are more successful due to hidden biases. IIRC, while it has been shown th

> The problem with using height is that there is already evidence that taller people are more successful due to hidden biases. IIRC, while it has been shown that taller people are more successful, and everyone says it is due to "hidden biases", those hidden biases were not in fact shown. A competing theory that I am familiar with, which provides just as good (if not better) explanation is this: Height is a (bad) proxy for healthy upbringing. Your maximum height is essentially genetically predetermined. But to actually attain that height, you have to have good everything growing up -- good food, good health. If you do not have access to nutritious food, or you are plagued with diseases that impact your growth (.. or treatment for them [0]), you will be shorter. So: Tall = Tall Genes + Good Environment Short = Short Genes + Good Environment ; or Tall Genes + Bad Environment Thus, tall people are correlated with good environment growing up, and shorter people less so -- and the theory is that it is the environment you grow up in that explains your success, rather than some hidden biases.

iguy 7y ago
Adult height is, as you say, a proxy for good genes & healthy environment. A noisy one, but not all noise. It's my understanding that this trumps the "hidden biases" idea (that height impresses people in job interviews etc. and this causes the correlations). But children's height might just be a proxy for age, or stage of development. 8th-graders are taller than 6th-graders, and do much better on 7th-grade tests.
jedberg 7y ago
That's certainly plausible. But it doesn't change the fact that student success and student height are correlated. :)
- beagle3 7y ago
  most definitely true; I was only commenting about the "hidden biases" part.
bsanr2 7y ago
IANAS, but from what I understand, it's more complicated than that. A parent's or grandparent's childhood health has been shown to affect the growth and health of their descendents. These effects only go away after several generations of adequate nutrition and health. Tall women tend to give birth to larger babies not (directly) because of a "tall gene", but because of the physiological realities of their bodies (i.e., more space). We've recently identified several traits that are hereditary and that can stunt growth, but that had previously not been linked directly to a given family's shortness (e.g., sleep apnea and gluten sensitivity), and which have interventions much less radical than genetic modification. It seems clear-cut, and there are studies that link certain genes to height on a statistical level. But I suspect we're going to find that height has little to do with genetics in the traditional sense, and outside a few notable outliers, that there are no "short genes", just environments that fit specific genetic profiles that are or are not available to the people with those genes. Europeans are tallest in a generalized global monoculture where Western diets and lifestyles are the norm, and where European-descended populations have enjoyed a generally higher quality of life for several generations. Color me surprised.
- brudgers 7y ago
  On average having healthy parents and grandparents seems more likely to create environments where a child’s wellbeing can be a focus of attention. Or more crudely, a dead grandparent can’t teach a child banjo or help with fractions or pay for glasses.
- iguy 7y ago
  Often what looks like an effect of grandparents on kids (controlling for parents) is just genetics -- what you observe in the parents is a noisy measure of some hidden variable, and the grandparents give you additional (noisy) data. > outside a few notable outliers, that there are no "short genes", just environments Predictions based on about 20000 different genes gave correlation 0.65, in the best paper I can find in 5 minutes. (Which was from 2017, a long time in this game.) This is for differences within a European-descended population.
  - NickNameNick 7y ago

iguy 7y ago

Adult height is, as you say, a proxy for good genes & healthy environment. A noisy one, but not all noise. It's my understanding that this trumps the "hidden biases" idea (that height impresses people in job interviews etc. and this causes the correlations). But children's height might just be a proxy for age, or stage of development. 8th-graders are taller than 6th-graders, and do much better on 7th-grade tests.

jedberg 7y ago

That's certainly plausible. But it doesn't change the fact that student success and student height are correlated. :)

beagle3 7y ago
most definitely true; I was only commenting about the "hidden biases" part.

bsanr2 7y ago

IANAS, but from what I understand, it's more complicated than that. A parent's or grandparent's childhood health has been shown to affect the growth and health of their descendents. These effects only go away after several generations of adequate nutrition and health. Tall women tend to give birth to larger babies not (directly) because of a "tall gene", but because of the physiological realities of their bodies (i.e., more space). We've recently identified several traits that are hereditary and that can stunt growth, but that had previously not been linked directly to a given family's shortness (e.g., sleep apnea and gluten sensitivity), and which have interventions much less radical than genetic modification. It seems clear-cut, and there are studies that link certain genes to height on a statistical level. But I suspect we're going to find that height has little to do with genetics in the traditional sense, and outside a few notable outliers, that there are no "short genes", just environments that fit specific genetic profiles that are or are not available to the people with those genes. Europeans are tallest in a generalized global monoculture where Western diets and lifestyles are the norm, and where European-descended populations have enjoyed a generally higher quality of life for several generations. Color me surprised.

brudgers 7y ago
On average having healthy parents and grandparents seems more likely to create environments where a child’s wellbeing can be a focus of attention. Or more crudely, a dead grandparent can’t teach a child banjo or help with fractions or pay for glasses.
iguy 7y ago
Often what looks like an effect of grandparents on kids (controlling for parents) is just genetics -- what you observe in the parents is a noisy measure of some hidden variable, and the grandparents give you additional (noisy) data. > outside a few notable outliers, that there are no "short genes", just environments Predictions based on about 20000 different genes gave correlation 0.65, in the best paper I can find in 5 minutes. (Which was from 2017, a long time in this game.) This is for differences within a European-descended population.
- NickNameNick 7y ago