6 ms·

Tall people are less supportive of government redistribution of wealth

26 points by drocer88 6y ago

thisistheend123 6y ago
From the abstract Taller individuals were less supportive of government wealth redistribution overall, but were especially averse if they were also wealthier. Post-hoc analyses suggested that for lower income deciles, the association was reversed. For these people, there was a positive association between height and support for wealth redistribution.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  All according to incentives: well-off and tall? - redistribution hurts you. Poor and tall? - redistribution helps especially you because if the economic factors are equal you enjoy your inherent biological advantage on otherwise equal field. If you're poor and short then you can hope to outcompete at least some tall people by doing better economically (working more, being smarter etc.). If the redistribution is very heavy then even if you manage to do that your now earned advantage is going to be taken away and redistributed leaving you with your biological disadvantage and no hope to outcompete those more privileged. All this means that redistribution won't really help disadvantaged people (short, minority, less attractive) much. What would help are measure to curtail ways you benefit from those factors unjustly.
- originate 6y ago
  A more appropriate headline is thus, “being taller makes you want money - your own (if you have it) or others (if you don’t).”
  - necovek 6y ago
    That's incorrect. "Being tall and wealthy makes you want more money", the abstract obviously says that wealthy tall people were especially against wealth distribution, implying that non-wealthy tall people were just like everyone else. There is a correlation simply because taller people are generally wealthier (citation missing, but it should be easy to dig a few out).
RhodesianHunter 6y ago
Phrased more broadly: People born with inherent advantages (appearance, stature, wealth, citizenship, etc.) are less likely to empathize with those who were not.
- sxg 6y ago
  Alternative interpretation: people with inherent advantages have more resources and don't want to give them up. People without those inherent advantages have fewer resources and would like more of them. People don't like to lose what they have, but they'd take more if they can. Not saying this is the "correct" or morally right interpretation, but I'm just pointing out that this study probably says less than it appears. I don't think this study allows you to make a call on whether some people empathize with other people.
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    > Alternative interpretation: people with inherent advantages have more resources and don't want to give them up. That's not an alternative interpretarion but rather a paraphrase.
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      Not really, one is an emotional capability, the other is being selfish even though they understand that it's hard for other people without money. Also as an example I might emphatize with poorer people, I don't believe that unconditional redistribution is sustainable.
- fortran77 6y ago
  Phrased more narrowly: "short people want more." See also: https://youtu.be/8bfyS-S-IJs?t=56 https://youtu.be/8bfyS-S-IJs?t=56
  - necovek 6y ago
    Haha, this made me laugh! Hopefully nobody takes it too seriously :)
blackbear_ 6y ago
Meh, from figure 1b it looks like the effect mainly due to the richest 10% being strongly opposed to it. In fact, > [...] all other deciles showed non-significant effects of height on redistribution attitudes when tested separately (all p >0.13), except the 10th decile which showed a significant negative effect (β=-0.06, se=0.02, p=0.02) TL;DR: ignore and forget.
- tgv 6y ago
  Exclude 10% of the data based on an important aspect, get a different result? Who would have thought. Anyway, I don't think there's anyone who believes length has a direct influence on political beliefs.
platz 6y ago
Any bets on of this result will reproduce?
boringg 6y ago
Click bait
dsomers 6y ago
Tell that to the Dutch! In America their main political parties would be considered radical communists.
- MLij 6y ago
  To clarify, the Dutch are the tallest people in the world.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Maybe height is relative?
    - cromka 6y ago
      Was going to make the same point.
  - pmdulaney 6y ago
    Do you suppose that there is a link between the fact that the Dutch are the tallest people in the world and that they also have the lowest incidence of lactose intolerance?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
the-dude 6y ago
I am tall, Dutch and I abide.
317070 6y ago
As someone who knows a thing or two about statistics, this looks as a painfully wrong interpretation of the data. Essentially this is p-hacking, although it might be inadvertant by the authors. This XKCD explains it well: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ So, if you have a lot of data, you don't get to try many things and then report the ones with high significance. I really doubt this result will stand in a dedicated followup study.
redsummer 6y ago
All far-left socialists I meet are either (A) short, or (B) had problems in the relationship with their parents.
arisAlexis 6y ago
this happens when you massively test irrelevant things. There is somewhere a statistically significant correlation with the color of your couch and the mars trajectory. That's why it is very important that data analysts and statisticians take a good look at the data and also explain it.
necovek 6y ago
Totally click-bait: my immediate reaction was that there were already studies to show that taller people are wealthier, and it seemed more reasonable to expect wealthier people to (in general) care less about wealth redistribution. That selection bias was already confirmed in the abstract, but obviously not in the title. However, as a tall person myself at 6'5"/195cm, I find that I do have to earn more (actually spend more) just to get the same lifestyle. All my out-of-pocket expenses for business travel to upgrade my economy seats on long-haul flights, bigger cars just to be able to fit my kids in the back, custom, longer beds and mattresses (and when looking to vacation somewhere, checking photos to ensure bed is not bounded at the bottom by a rail or I'll be spending nights crunched up)..., increase costs just so I can "fit" into many places people take for granted. So while there is some preferential treatment for taller males (I've seen it too), nobody mentions the extra costs their lives generally require. It's like comparing absolute salaries between countries.
- CincinnatiMan 6y ago
  I would imagine it's not mentioned because those costs are somewhat negligible compared to the positives of being a tall man. The things you've listed seem pretty trivial to be honest, and I imagine any man shorter than 5'9" would trade positions with you in an instant. It's like listing the bad parts of having more money, sure nothing is ever 100% positive but when it's 99% positive, it's not always worth mentioning the negative 1%.
  - necovek 6y ago
    Or maybe they are not mentioned because nobody thought of it? Like, the OP study happened, and it's nothing but "wealthy people are less likely to want wealth redistribution, even if they are tall". From personal experience, I'd say it's far from negligible when you put it down on paper. Only people outside the average size (5-95th percentile usually) have to think about these. I'd go on to say that everything in life is on average 50% more expensive for me (eg. custom bed is 2-3x more expensive than those available in stores of comparable quality, my custom height kitchen-top as well, or baby changing station... But plenty of things are the same price, thus only a 50% increase). For the same amount of money, "average humans" are getting more out of it. If that should not be accounted for when it comes to "wealth", I am not sure what should. But I guess without properly accounting for all the things I've "had" to pay extra for just to get basic comfort, people are going to continue to claim costs are negligible. Not saying I'd change with anyone, and I am probably lucky to have ended up in IT (otherwise, my feet would be dangling off my bed :)). And sure, it's way better for males to be taller than average than shorter than average in the society today, but there's a whole lot of average in there that simply don't have to think about any of the things I do.
seesawtron 6y ago
Imagine your research gets published in a journal and gets criticised and flagged on HN. The academia has so much to learn with respect to open reviews and open science.
mam2 6y ago
"smaller people support more redistribution of wealth" Better or not ?
pmdulaney 6y ago
You can almost set this up as a syllogism: * People who think they are responsible for their own success are less likely to support redistribution of wealth * People who are wealthy are more likely to think they are responsible for their own success. * Wealthy families are more likely to feed their children well * Well-fed children are likely to taller than poorer-fed children * Wealthy families are more likely to produce children who are wealthy themselves when they grow up Therefore, tall people are less likely to be supportive of redistribution of wealth
ykevinator 6y ago
Government policy results in redistribution of wealth. We argue about which direction.

26 points by drocer88 6y ago

From the abstract Taller individuals were less supportive of government wealth redistribution overall, but were especially averse if they were also wealthier. Post-hoc analyses suggested that for lower income deciles, the association was reversed. For these people, there was a positive association between height and support for wealth redistribution.

bluecalm 6y ago
All according to incentives: well-off and tall? - redistribution hurts you. Poor and tall? - redistribution helps especially you because if the economic factors are equal you enjoy your inherent biological advantage on otherwise equal field. If you're poor and short then you can hope to outcompete at least some tall people by doing better economically (working more, being smarter etc.). If the redistribution is very heavy then even if you manage to do that your now earned advantage is going to be taken away and redistributed leaving you with your biological disadvantage and no hope to outcompete those more privileged. All this means that redistribution won't really help disadvantaged people (short, minority, less attractive) much. What would help are measure to curtail ways you benefit from those factors unjustly.
originate 6y ago
A more appropriate headline is thus, “being taller makes you want money - your own (if you have it) or others (if you don’t).”
- necovek 6y ago
  That's incorrect. "Being tall and wealthy makes you want more money", the abstract obviously says that wealthy tall people were especially against wealth distribution, implying that non-wealthy tall people were just like everyone else. There is a correlation simply because taller people are generally wealthier (citation missing, but it should be easy to dig a few out).

RhodesianHunter 6y ago

Phrased more broadly: People born with inherent advantages (appearance, stature, wealth, citizenship, etc.) are less likely to empathize with those who were not.

sxg 6y ago
Alternative interpretation: people with inherent advantages have more resources and don't want to give them up. People without those inherent advantages have fewer resources and would like more of them. People don't like to lose what they have, but they'd take more if they can. Not saying this is the "correct" or morally right interpretation, but I'm just pointing out that this study probably says less than it appears. I don't think this study allows you to make a call on whether some people empathize with other people.
- hh3k0 6y ago
  > Alternative interpretation: people with inherent advantages have more resources and don't want to give them up. That's not an alternative interpretarion but rather a paraphrase.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Not really, one is an emotional capability, the other is being selfish even though they understand that it's hard for other people without money. Also as an example I might emphatize with poorer people, I don't believe that unconditional redistribution is sustainable.
fortran77 6y ago
Phrased more narrowly: "short people want more." See also: https://youtu.be/8bfyS-S-IJs?t=56 https://youtu.be/8bfyS-S-IJs?t=56
- necovek 6y ago
  Haha, this made me laugh! Hopefully nobody takes it too seriously :)

blackbear_ 6y ago

Meh, from figure 1b it looks like the effect mainly due to the richest 10% being strongly opposed to it. In fact, > [...] all other deciles showed non-significant effects of height on redistribution attitudes when tested separately (all p >0.13), except the 10th decile which showed a significant negative effect (β=-0.06, se=0.02, p=0.02) TL;DR: ignore and forget.

tgv 6y ago
Exclude 10% of the data based on an important aspect, get a different result? Who would have thought. Anyway, I don't think there's anyone who believes length has a direct influence on political beliefs.

platz 6y ago

Any bets on of this result will reproduce?

boringg 6y ago

Click bait

dsomers 6y ago

Tell that to the Dutch! In America their main political parties would be considered radical communists.

MLij 6y ago
To clarify, the Dutch are the tallest people in the world.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Maybe height is relative?
  - cromka 6y ago
    Was going to make the same point.
- pmdulaney 6y ago
  Do you suppose that there is a link between the fact that the Dutch are the tallest people in the world and that they also have the lowest incidence of lactose intolerance?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

the-dude 6y ago

I am tall, Dutch and I abide.

317070 6y ago

As someone who knows a thing or two about statistics, this looks as a painfully wrong interpretation of the data. Essentially this is p-hacking, although it might be inadvertant by the authors. This XKCD explains it well: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ So, if you have a lot of data, you don't get to try many things and then report the ones with high significance. I really doubt this result will stand in a dedicated followup study.

redsummer 6y ago

All far-left socialists I meet are either (A) short, or (B) had problems in the relationship with their parents.

arisAlexis 6y ago

this happens when you massively test irrelevant things. There is somewhere a statistically significant correlation with the color of your couch and the mars trajectory. That's why it is very important that data analysts and statisticians take a good look at the data and also explain it.

necovek 6y ago

Totally click-bait: my immediate reaction was that there were already studies to show that taller people are wealthier, and it seemed more reasonable to expect wealthier people to (in general) care less about wealth redistribution. That selection bias was already confirmed in the abstract, but obviously not in the title. However, as a tall person myself at 6'5"/195cm, I find that I do have to earn more (actually spend more) just to get the same lifestyle. All my out-of-pocket expenses for business travel to upgrade my economy seats on long-haul flights, bigger cars just to be able to fit my kids in the back, custom, longer beds and mattresses (and when looking to vacation somewhere, checking photos to ensure bed is not bounded at the bottom by a rail or I'll be spending nights crunched up)..., increase costs just so I can "fit" into many places people take for granted. So while there is some preferential treatment for taller males (I've seen it too), nobody mentions the extra costs their lives generally require. It's like comparing absolute salaries between countries.

CincinnatiMan 6y ago
I would imagine it's not mentioned because those costs are somewhat negligible compared to the positives of being a tall man. The things you've listed seem pretty trivial to be honest, and I imagine any man shorter than 5'9" would trade positions with you in an instant. It's like listing the bad parts of having more money, sure nothing is ever 100% positive but when it's 99% positive, it's not always worth mentioning the negative 1%.
- necovek 6y ago
  Or maybe they are not mentioned because nobody thought of it? Like, the OP study happened, and it's nothing but "wealthy people are less likely to want wealth redistribution, even if they are tall". From personal experience, I'd say it's far from negligible when you put it down on paper. Only people outside the average size (5-95th percentile usually) have to think about these. I'd go on to say that everything in life is on average 50% more expensive for me (eg. custom bed is 2-3x more expensive than those available in stores of comparable quality, my custom height kitchen-top as well, or baby changing station... But plenty of things are the same price, thus only a 50% increase). For the same amount of money, "average humans" are getting more out of it. If that should not be accounted for when it comes to "wealth", I am not sure what should. But I guess without properly accounting for all the things I've "had" to pay extra for just to get basic comfort, people are going to continue to claim costs are negligible. Not saying I'd change with anyone, and I am probably lucky to have ended up in IT (otherwise, my feet would be dangling off my bed :)). And sure, it's way better for males to be taller than average than shorter than average in the society today, but there's a whole lot of average in there that simply don't have to think about any of the things I do.

seesawtron 6y ago

Imagine your research gets published in a journal and gets criticised and flagged on HN. The academia has so much to learn with respect to open reviews and open science.

mam2 6y ago

"smaller people support more redistribution of wealth" Better or not ?

pmdulaney 6y ago

You can almost set this up as a syllogism: * People who think they are responsible for their own success are less likely to support redistribution of wealth * People who are wealthy are more likely to think they are responsible for their own success. * Wealthy families are more likely to feed their children well * Well-fed children are likely to taller than poorer-fed children * Wealthy families are more likely to produce children who are wealthy themselves when they grow up Therefore, tall people are less likely to be supportive of redistribution of wealth

ykevinator 6y ago

Government policy results in redistribution of wealth. We argue about which direction.