Hacker News Reader

Comment by FilterSweep | Hacker News Reader

As an extremely "average" height guy, height has been one "human variable" that has always confused me - anecdote after anecdote after anecdote from both proclamations from women, professional sports, and more importantly, our(Western) culture in general have made height seem to be the most important physical trait in a male; yet this article, along with actual research have time and time again either demonstrated this to not be the case[0] or relatively mixed [1] in preference.

Anecdotally, the answer to the article seems to be "yes" due to selective pressures, but the data suggests otherwise.

[0] (meta study) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277695/

[1] http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ebs/7/2/121.pdf&productCode=...

View on HN

I'm not sure what you mean by "the most important physical trait in a male". Women prefer taller men. They say so and studies back this up. Taller men have more mating options and more attractive partners. Taller men make more money, and they are more likely to be selected as leaders. They are perceived as more dominant and more attractive. It is utterly indisputable that in western societies at least, being above average in height is a huge benefit societally for men.

Do taller men have more children? Apparently not, but that's kind of a horrible metric for success in a modern society, because people are actively choosing not to have as many children. More interesting questions might be how height affects frequency of sexual encounters, or number of sexual partners, or any of a number of other measures that most men might want to increase, vs number of children, which is a number that most men do not want to increase significantly beyond the average.

Actually, an interesting question might be too ask how many children a man wanted compared to how many he had. Do taller men end up with more, less, or the same control over their reproduction?

There is pretty conclusive evidence that taller men are on average more attractive than shorter men. However being more attractive does not necessarily mean you will have more kids. My theory is that people want to marry people of similar attractiveness, so if for very attractive people the pool of potential matches could actually be smaller, in part because attractive people are more choosy. Also in terms of evolution, if you have sex it doesn't matter how attractive your partner was.

> Also in terms of evolution, if you have sex it doesn't matter how attractive your partner was.

It does, because your partner's attractiveness affects your child's attractiveness, and thereby their mating ability.

From the article: In fact, from a pure Darwinian perspective of fitter organisms producing more offspring, the opposite is happening with modern Homo sapiens. Impoverished, less healthy, and thus typically shorter families tend to have more children than prosperous families.

Everybody knows it, but it's pretty crazy when you think about it. However with a generally increasing standard of living that factor should still get smaller and smaller and the people thus taller and taller.

I think the confusion comes from defining what is a "fitter" organism?

and if we keep to trend, its quite likely we will bring Idiocracy[1] to fruition

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Being tall is highly advantageous in the right circumstances, terrible in the wrong ones. It just varies based on environment, resources, etc. Athletes know this too, but it does so happen that the sports which make the most money right now thrive on big, tall men. Basketball and American football thrive on giant guys, but it's not the only model.

The best rock climber isn't going to be an NBA forward, it's going to be someone with a better power-to-weight ratio. That doesn't have to be short, but it can't be too tall without wasting weight on long bones that are going to have to support smaller muscles.

Cramped airlines seats aren't great for tall people either.

Japanese housing is terrible for tall people too.

Honestly, not a lot in Japan is ideal for tall people, including the reactions of the average person when you're walking around...

One of those circumstances is in combat. Historically that has been extremely important.

It wouldn't surprise me that under more violent circumstances, mate preferences shift toward those of greater size, strength, and overall physical ability.

Well mate preference tends to shift towards living mates.

You only have to compare the recent ancestors of the Maori with current Maori to see the effects of constant warfare in an environment which is not food constrained.

Sure, unless you need to be in a tunnel system, or survive on a small island with minimal resources. It doesn't help to be a giant viking if you can't eat like one.

As a 200cm/6'6" man, I think the optimum height is 6'4" - you get all the benefits of being tall (social prestige, being able to breathe in crowds) and fewer of the disadvantages (clothes still fit, beds still fit, buses and planes still fit, don't hit your head on doorframes or light fittings anywhere near as much).

If only I could go back in time and tell young vacri to stop growing at 6'4" :)

At 6'2", I wish I had either gone up to my projected 6'8" (I think based on the double at two metric) or stayed down at a mere 5-10"or 6'. Everything is too small for me... Long airline flights are excuciating, and even the height of common kitchen fixtures is really too low

what country do you live in? I'm your same height and I don't really have these issues.

US. I also have the difficulty of broad shoulders and something like a 50" chest, which makes airline seats even more fun - if I'm in an aisle seat, I constantly get one shoulder run over by the drink cart because it's sticking out beyond...

At least around here, anything household is designed for the height of a typical 5'5" woman. Counters and tables are low enough that I have to half bend over to use them.

US as well -- I'm going to start paying more attention to sinks. Maybe I do have to stoop and I've just grown accustomed to it.

> broad shoulders and something like a 50" chest

That explains the rest.. I'm a toothpick.

I would say that women have a bias towards socially dominant/powerful men which probably goes back to favouring the chief of a tribe in paleoithic time.

As humans tend to reduce the problem down with stereotyping people probably associate tall with socially dominant even if isn't very accurate. Thus you get a feedback loop where taller people are expected to act a certain way and then start acting that way.

I know a guy who is a dwarf who also has a very successful business, is a funny and charming guy and also has a beautiful and kind girlfriend. So height is neither a ticket or a penalty to success in life.

> As an extremely "average" height guy,

Out of curiosity, what do you consider an extremely "average" height?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com