7 ms·

I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is some

I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion applies just as much to men as it does to women. Casually attraction does seem like less important of a factor for men, but in data that seems to be because height is vastly important instead. So much so that a woman's attractiveness is not congruent to a man's attractiveness, but his height. I find this to be true casually and it certainly has some scientific backing[1]. In online forum threads (okay fine, AskReddit) and female friends have nearly universally expressed less interest in short males precisely because they are short. In fact, I think if you replace "attractive women" with "tall men" you have a slightly better scientific basis for this article, because we can base it on studies and not the author's perceptions of attractiveness. 10% of Russel 3000 CEOs are women, and similarly 10% of (original source doesn't say) CEOs are below average height. Wikipedia says[1]: > A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) tall, which is approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) taller than the average American man. 30% were 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height.[11] Similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m) in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height. [1] See especially the "unsolicited messages per week, by height" graph: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination#In_business http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination#In_busine...

kvb 14y ago
Of course it's also possible that height and attractiveness are correlated with competence (e.g. because healthy diets as children influence all three attributes), in which case we'd expect to see more tall/attractive people promoted even in a meritocracy (though perhaps not to the observed degree).
- wmf 14y ago
  In the developed world I would hope that virtually everyone has good enough health/nutrition and thus variation in height and appearance is due more to genetics.
  - vadman 14y ago
    I would guess (based just on observing people in the New York subway) that around 20% of people, at least in the USA, do not have education/income/some other contributing factor to provide a healthy diet for their kids. And they themselves were likely even worse off as kids. Quick googling result: http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/ http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-incom...
  - edouard1234567 14y ago
    Agreed, diet is a poor explanation for developed countries. What seems more likely is that the discrimination start earlier, in college or high school where athletic students have an easier time going to the best colleges simply because they are good at a sport (assuming height is correlated to being good at a sport popular in college)
    - Gmo 14y ago
      That's only valid in the US though. Sports does not give you a direct way to a good university in Europe (at least, mainland Europe).
    - kaybe 14y ago
      And the difference between universities are by far not as big over here in Europe. (In addition to the sibling comment)
    - aetherson 14y ago
      I doubt this is very explanatory. Height is doubtless correlated with athleticism, but it's fairly weakly correlated. Except in basketball, when you see a group of athletes, you'll tend to see a range of heights. A little taller than average? Sure. But not immensely so. And then, athleticism is doubtless correlated with admission to elite universities, but, again, only weakly so. The top tier and second tier universities like to see some extracurricular activities on your record, but "being good at cross country running" is far from a sure-fire way to get into Harvard. The REALLY good athletes don't go to top-tier academic universities, and don't get corporate jobs -- they're on the pro athlete track. You might get into Harvard due to being a good football player but not good enough to go pro, even if you were not otherwise academically capable of going to Harvard. But, first, you're now talking about a small percentage of Harvard students. Second, I'd like to see some data before I'd concede that IF you're clearly not elite-university quality academically, BUT you get in on your athletic merits, AND you go into a corporate track job, THEN you end up with an elite career path. So, long story short: Is there probably some advantage to height through the path you suggest? Yes, probably some measurable advantage. Is it enough to explain the pretty substantial advantage that tall men enjoy according to the literature? I can't see how. It's passing through too many weak correlations.
ctbeiser 14y ago
And yet, height isn't as tightly correlated with future earnings as height at the age of 16. Source: http://www.economist.com/node/1099333 http://www.economist.com/node/1099333
jlgreco 14y ago
For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), I am a relatively short guy who is not particularly attracted to men, but if I really think about it, I think I have a preference to taller men, just in terms of first impressions. I think I associate height with being "more grown up". I have been taller than my father for many years now, but I think the extent to which I consider him more of an "adult" than myself is comparable to how I consider men who are taller than me as well.
- saranagati 14y ago
  similarly, I'm 6'2" and almost all my male friends have been taller than me since early high school. This correlation has given me the first impression that any male under 6 feet is not a person.
jquery 14y ago
At my company, the senior male executives are much taller than average. There is only a single male executive of mere average height.* Nothing to see here. Just diet and environmental factors in our grand meritocracy, surely. *EDIT: Removed semi-personal information.
sageikosa 14y ago
There's a line in the John Adams miniseries where the Continental Congress had just selected Washington to lead the army. Ben Franklin turns to Adams and says: "he was bound to lead something; he's the tallest man in the room". Apocryphal, sure. A clever mnemonic, you bet.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Mnemonic?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    The scene itself (or the lines themselves) is (are) the mnemonic, something that helps me remember height co-related with command.
jauer 14y ago
You can only take the height thing so far. From the OK Cupid data you link to it appears that there is a sharp falloff for men right after 6'6". I suspect that's the point where "wow! you're tall" kicks in and attractiveness turns to curiosity.
csense 14y ago
> I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low This is very true. I sometimes like to play devil's advocate, take up an unpopular side of an argument just to see how people react to an intelligent opponent. I highly suggest trying this. It sharpens your perspectives; helps you think about your own biases, dogmas and blind spots. (I personally recommend trying to be somewhat anonymous, i.e. this account is my only HN username, so I'm not anonymous as far as people knowing that this current comment and all of my past comments have been made by the same real person. But this username isn't linked to my other online presences or real-life identity. Saying controversial things can be bad for your reputation.) Taking unpopular positions -- most of the time things I don't believe, but sometimes things I do -- also opens your eyes to precisely how much we rely on name-calling -- racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist -- to selectively frame issues and shut down discussion.
bane 14y ago
I think this is a double edged sword. Anecdotal I've noticed that people who fit certain attractive ideals do rocket up the ladder faster, but seem to flame out (not burn out) faster. Rather than attribute this to a "lights that burn twice as bright..." I think it can be attributed to being moved up into positions faster than their own competency is ready for. Those few that can make it by competency and grit alone seem to be the ones that do last up into the higher ranks. Ask yourself this, how many male fortune-500 CEOs could be thought of as extremely good looking. A second anecdote: I used to spend a great deal of time working with the military, and the running joke was that Lt. Colonels and Colonels all seemed to be 6'1", while the Generals above them were all very short.
koeselitz 14y ago
Unless these studies were controlled for gender - and it appears that they were not - height is just one more factor which both men and women have to contend with. And if that's the case, then attractiveness is still a lopsided standard which women deal with more.

kvb 14y ago

Of course it's also possible that height and attractiveness are correlated with competence (e.g. because healthy diets as children influence all three attributes), in which case we'd expect to see more tall/attractive people promoted even in a meritocracy (though perhaps not to the observed degree).

wmf 14y ago
In the developed world I would hope that virtually everyone has good enough health/nutrition and thus variation in height and appearance is due more to genetics.
- vadman 14y ago
  I would guess (based just on observing people in the New York subway) that around 20% of people, at least in the USA, do not have education/income/some other contributing factor to provide a healthy diet for their kids. And they themselves were likely even worse off as kids. Quick googling result: http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/ http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-incom...
- edouard1234567 14y ago
  Agreed, diet is a poor explanation for developed countries. What seems more likely is that the discrimination start earlier, in college or high school where athletic students have an easier time going to the best colleges simply because they are good at a sport (assuming height is correlated to being good at a sport popular in college)
  - Gmo 14y ago
    That's only valid in the US though. Sports does not give you a direct way to a good university in Europe (at least, mainland Europe).
  - kaybe 14y ago
    And the difference between universities are by far not as big over here in Europe. (In addition to the sibling comment)
  - aetherson 14y ago
    I doubt this is very explanatory. Height is doubtless correlated with athleticism, but it's fairly weakly correlated. Except in basketball, when you see a group of athletes, you'll tend to see a range of heights. A little taller than average? Sure. But not immensely so. And then, athleticism is doubtless correlated with admission to elite universities, but, again, only weakly so. The top tier and second tier universities like to see some extracurricular activities on your record, but "being good at cross country running" is far from a sure-fire way to get into Harvard. The REALLY good athletes don't go to top-tier academic universities, and don't get corporate jobs -- they're on the pro athlete track. You might get into Harvard due to being a good football player but not good enough to go pro, even if you were not otherwise academically capable of going to Harvard. But, first, you're now talking about a small percentage of Harvard students. Second, I'd like to see some data before I'd concede that IF you're clearly not elite-university quality academically, BUT you get in on your athletic merits, AND you go into a corporate track job, THEN you end up with an elite career path. So, long story short: Is there probably some advantage to height through the path you suggest? Yes, probably some measurable advantage. Is it enough to explain the pretty substantial advantage that tall men enjoy according to the literature? I can't see how. It's passing through too many weak correlations.

ctbeiser 14y ago

And yet, height isn't as tightly correlated with future earnings as height at the age of 16. Source: http://www.economist.com/node/1099333 http://www.economist.com/node/1099333

jlgreco 14y ago

For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), I am a relatively short guy who is not particularly attracted to men, but if I really think about it, I think I have a preference to taller men, just in terms of first impressions. I think I associate height with being "more grown up". I have been taller than my father for many years now, but I think the extent to which I consider him more of an "adult" than myself is comparable to how I consider men who are taller than me as well.

saranagati 14y ago
similarly, I'm 6'2" and almost all my male friends have been taller than me since early high school. This correlation has given me the first impression that any male under 6 feet is not a person.

jquery 14y ago

At my company, the senior male executives are much taller than average. There is only a single male executive of mere average height.* Nothing to see here. Just diet and environmental factors in our grand meritocracy, surely. *EDIT: Removed semi-personal information.

sageikosa 14y ago

There's a line in the John Adams miniseries where the Continental Congress had just selected Washington to lead the army. Ben Franklin turns to Adams and says: "he was bound to lead something; he's the tallest man in the room". Apocryphal, sure. A clever mnemonic, you bet.

Evbn 14y ago
Mnemonic?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  The scene itself (or the lines themselves) is (are) the mnemonic, something that helps me remember height co-related with command.

jauer 14y ago

You can only take the height thing so far. From the OK Cupid data you link to it appears that there is a sharp falloff for men right after 6'6". I suspect that's the point where "wow! you're tall" kicks in and attractiveness turns to curiosity.

csense 14y ago

> I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low This is very true. I sometimes like to play devil's advocate, take up an unpopular side of an argument just to see how people react to an intelligent opponent. I highly suggest trying this. It sharpens your perspectives; helps you think about your own biases, dogmas and blind spots. (I personally recommend trying to be somewhat anonymous, i.e. this account is my only HN username, so I'm not anonymous as far as people knowing that this current comment and all of my past comments have been made by the same real person. But this username isn't linked to my other online presences or real-life identity. Saying controversial things can be bad for your reputation.) Taking unpopular positions -- most of the time things I don't believe, but sometimes things I do -- also opens your eyes to precisely how much we rely on name-calling -- racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist -- to selectively frame issues and shut down discussion.

bane 14y ago

I think this is a double edged sword. Anecdotal I've noticed that people who fit certain attractive ideals do rocket up the ladder faster, but seem to flame out (not burn out) faster. Rather than attribute this to a "lights that burn twice as bright..." I think it can be attributed to being moved up into positions faster than their own competency is ready for. Those few that can make it by competency and grit alone seem to be the ones that do last up into the higher ranks. Ask yourself this, how many male fortune-500 CEOs could be thought of as extremely good looking. A second anecdote: I used to spend a great deal of time working with the military, and the running joke was that Lt. Colonels and Colonels all seemed to be 6'1", while the Generals above them were all very short.

koeselitz 14y ago

Unless these studies were controlled for gender - and it appears that they were not - height is just one more factor which both men and women have to contend with. And if that's the case, then attractiveness is still a lopsided standard which women deal with more.