4 ms·

I think the stats you are referencing about humans getting taller are from improvements in childhood nutrition. I don't think genetically we've been selecting f

I think the stats you are referencing about humans getting taller are from improvements in childhood nutrition. I don't think genetically we've been selecting for taller people, as that is harder to conclude (plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget). > Women usually marry the millionaire, but have sex with the pool boy. This dual-mating strategy is instinctive. Yea and the man has concubines, and the prenup? Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's children in these stories. EDIT: See here for a study showing after 1980 people have actually been getting shorter (at least in Japan, which can be considered almost a post-modern society when compared to the US) [1]. [1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/science-health/average-height-japanese-born-1980-later-declining-study-finds/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/02/12/national/scienc...

aortega 5y ago
>Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's children You'd be surprised.
- lupire 5y ago
  Pool boys barely even exist in real life.
  - to1y 5y ago
    In this context it's: Any attractive available man she spends enough time alone with.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      Really it's a made up story from "data" that hasn't been shared from someone who is apparently happily married and learned about online dating at least second hand but seemingly just from tropes they've heard in online forums, so I'm not too worked up about the situation.
klipt 5y ago
> plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, where less attractive women are expected to settle down with less attractive men who will financially support their kids. But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could never marry), have their children, and rely on the state to financially support their kids. Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men.
- aortega 5y ago
  >men do not necessarily select for taller woman Men don't select, because we don't get pregnant, our instinct is to mate with whoever we can. Women are nature's selector, not men.
  - tsol 5y ago
    He's not disagreeing with that. . After pregnancy there are about 18 years of raising a kid too-- so ability to provide is a part of selection. In the past women would have to take it into account, but now it's much less necessary because they will be provided for either way
- aortega 5y ago
  >Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men I con't understand how so few people realize this. The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies. It's the perfect combination to ensure reproduction of only the top few percent of men.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    > The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies. It’s really not. It’s fueled by echo chambers and it’s self-reinforcing.
buran77 5y ago
Height, weight, shape, pilosity, generic looks, intelligence, education, success, wealth, virility, etc. are all criteria that are used by people to judge other people and discriminate, whether they're purely esthetic or have functional impact. Society also prizes different things in men and women. These are all forms of discrimination but I think it should be clear that they're nothing like the discrimination of black people. Scale, intention, means, effect, all matter. A puddle isn't an ocean although both will get you wet if you step in them. If your point is that we should eliminate any and all discrimination... sure. Although it's a far too lofty goal to happen as long as we're biological beings. But saying that "there's really no difference" between color and height discrimination is something you could and should really walk back from rather than attempt repeatedly to defend. Every single decision you make is based on some criteria that you may not even be able to clearly define. But just because you can't verbalize why you like this person and not the next doesn't make it less of a discrimination process. Do you think that makes you the KKK?
- chrischen 5y ago
  I concede it's arguable which discrimination is of a bigger magnitude, but it doesn't matter. MLK's whole point was that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That specifically means that no matter how small the injustice is, as long as it's the same class of injustice (prejudice), it's a threat to justice elsewhere.
  - buran77 5y ago
    > I concede it's arguable which discrimination is of a bigger magnitude Unfortunately you conceded nothing and chose to maintain a position which you not only failed to support no matter how many times you tried, it's also either insulting, dismissive, or absurdly ignorant. If you have to wonder which discrimination is of higher magnitude, against black people or short people you clearly don't grasp the full extent of what discrimination can be. You fail to understand how magnitude makes these 2 cases far more different than the fact that they are "discrimination" makes them similar. Quoting MLK after wondering which discrimination is bigger (against black people or against people who are 5'9") just adds insult to injury. You seem convinced that having a hairy mole on your face is exactly like being black or jew as far as discrimination goes. That being rejected by a woman for the mole is the same as being rejected and punished by society for your skin color. Who's to know who suffered more? It's "arguable" because they are "the same class" after all, right? So I concede that you're far more willing to dig yourself in the deepest hole trying to defend an indefensible argument than to actually concede anything. I'll tell you one thing, no matter how you look like, if people hate your character they might use whatever insult cuts you deeper rather than something they have a personal issue with. So if you do go around telling people being short is like being black and they pick on your height it could be that they have a problem with what you chose to be rather than what you are by nature.

aortega 5y ago

>Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's children You'd be surprised.

lupire 5y ago
Pool boys barely even exist in real life.
- to1y 5y ago
  In this context it's: Any attractive available man she spends enough time alone with.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    Really it's a made up story from "data" that hasn't been shared from someone who is apparently happily married and learned about online dating at least second hand but seemingly just from tropes they've heard in online forums, so I'm not too worked up about the situation.

klipt 5y ago

> plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, where less attractive women are expected to settle down with less attractive men who will financially support their kids. But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could never marry), have their children, and rely on the state to financially support their kids. Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men.

aortega 5y ago
>men do not necessarily select for taller woman Men don't select, because we don't get pregnant, our instinct is to mate with whoever we can. Women are nature's selector, not men.
- tsol 5y ago
  He's not disagreeing with that. . After pregnancy there are about 18 years of raising a kid too-- so ability to provide is a part of selection. In the past women would have to take it into account, but now it's much less necessary because they will be provided for either way
aortega 5y ago
>Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men I con't understand how so few people realize this. The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies. It's the perfect combination to ensure reproduction of only the top few percent of men.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  > The modern 'incel crisis' is fueled by online dating and government subsidies. It’s really not. It’s fueled by echo chambers and it’s self-reinforcing.

buran77 5y ago

Height, weight, shape, pilosity, generic looks, intelligence, education, success, wealth, virility, etc. are all criteria that are used by people to judge other people and discriminate, whether they're purely esthetic or have functional impact. Society also prizes different things in men and women. These are all forms of discrimination but I think it should be clear that they're nothing like the discrimination of black people. Scale, intention, means, effect, all matter. A puddle isn't an ocean although both will get you wet if you step in them. If your point is that we should eliminate any and all discrimination... sure. Although it's a far too lofty goal to happen as long as we're biological beings. But saying that "there's really no difference" between color and height discrimination is something you could and should really walk back from rather than attempt repeatedly to defend. Every single decision you make is based on some criteria that you may not even be able to clearly define. But just because you can't verbalize why you like this person and not the next doesn't make it less of a discrimination process. Do you think that makes you the KKK?

chrischen 5y ago
I concede it's arguable which discrimination is of a bigger magnitude, but it doesn't matter. MLK's whole point was that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That specifically means that no matter how small the injustice is, as long as it's the same class of injustice (prejudice), it's a threat to justice elsewhere.
- buran77 5y ago
  > I concede it's arguable which discrimination is of a bigger magnitude Unfortunately you conceded nothing and chose to maintain a position which you not only failed to support no matter how many times you tried, it's also either insulting, dismissive, or absurdly ignorant. If you have to wonder which discrimination is of higher magnitude, against black people or short people you clearly don't grasp the full extent of what discrimination can be. You fail to understand how magnitude makes these 2 cases far more different than the fact that they are "discrimination" makes them similar. Quoting MLK after wondering which discrimination is bigger (against black people or against people who are 5'9") just adds insult to injury. You seem convinced that having a hairy mole on your face is exactly like being black or jew as far as discrimination goes. That being rejected by a woman for the mole is the same as being rejected and punished by society for your skin color. Who's to know who suffered more? It's "arguable" because they are "the same class" after all, right? So I concede that you're far more willing to dig yourself in the deepest hole trying to defend an indefensible argument than to actually concede anything. I'll tell you one thing, no matter how you look like, if people hate your character they might use whatever insult cuts you deeper rather than something they have a personal issue with. So if you do go around telling people being short is like being black and they pick on your height it could be that they have a problem with what you chose to be rather than what you are by nature.