Extra Chromosome
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Posts
- 8,025
- Reputation
- 14,434
Preface:
I am writing this thread in response to @RedPilledStemcel talking about why the "ideal" height is average or slightly above. This will also be my last time bothering to argue such an obvious topic because I am running out of time and would rather release the results of my research to benefit this forum instead of focusing on pointless debate/argument.
--------------------
Let us get to the points directly without the need of poised writing structures.
Our goal is to ultimately prove that being taller = higher smv.
SMV is what we need for "slaying" (proven by faceandlms, so I won't bother arguing it here), it is also true by definition.
I. Commonly used arguments:
1. Small sample size
2. Cherry picking
3. A single/few cases aren't enough to conclude something about the whole human population.
4. Biased sample
I would also like to add this quote from someone as a bonus, as it goes on the same grounds of the argument above:
Let me entertain this retarded argument for a little more.
Here is a very good looking 5'7 male model with huge status halo getting made fun of for being short.
Click reply if the image doesn't view.
Then by that logic:
II. Study done on effect of height in reproductive success (used by @RedPilledStemcel ) and the main point of this thread:
Here @RedPilledStemcel acts like this study is the end all be all trump card to disprove the advantage of height on smv.
I assume that he just skimmed through the abstract looking for sentences then suddenly saying "OH I AM RIGHT HEIGHT DOESN'T MATTER"
Well, let us take a look in depth on the article used.
Here is what @RedPilledStemcel keeps referring to:
I quote from heightcel, who already debunked this:
TLDR: Reproductive success =/= attraction, reproductive success =/= smv, reprodcutive success =/= frequency of sexual intercourse with more attractive women.
Please do not make the same mistakes and just quote my TLDR and make us go in circles, read in depth.
Also lmfao at the sample of people older than 60, JFL.
Having 0.25 less kids at 6'3 than at 5'9 doesn't disprove shit.
III. Few studies on the advantage of height on smv:
In this video, even by making the manlets millionairs, it didn't change the opinion of the females:
"Muh its over for 6'4+ manmore """lanklets"""
Tagging a few pathetic mongoloids: @KrissKross @ZyzzBrah
Requested tags:
@The Dude Abides @Coping @Bluepill @dodt
I am writing this thread in response to @RedPilledStemcel talking about why the "ideal" height is average or slightly above. This will also be my last time bothering to argue such an obvious topic because I am running out of time and would rather release the results of my research to benefit this forum instead of focusing on pointless debate/argument.
--------------------
Let us get to the points directly without the need of poised writing structures.
Our goal is to ultimately prove that being taller = higher smv.
SMV is what we need for "slaying" (proven by faceandlms, so I won't bother arguing it here), it is also true by definition.
I. Commonly used arguments:
This argument holds no weight due to the following:"I know many average height people with GFs."
"Just go outside bro."
1. Small sample size
2. Cherry picking
3. A single/few cases aren't enough to conclude something about the whole human population.
4. Biased sample
I would also like to add this quote from someone as a bonus, as it goes on the same grounds of the argument above:
[1]For myself, I know something for sure:
I know plenty of short men who are average looking or above and rarely have sex (and this through being LTR cuckolds), with a good number of them (I'd say a little below half) being civilian virgins well into their early 20s. While in college, I knew one short "slayer"... of FOB asian foreign exchange students. He was white, had some kind of blue/grayish eyes (easily his best feature, incredible halo) and brownish-blonde hair, and was around 5'5".
Meanwhile, out of all the average-height to tall men I know (which run the gamut from below average to above average looking), only TWO of them are civilian virgins in their 20s. One of them is a manic depressive, and the other one has a severe stuttering problem due to brain damage incurred in his childhood.
I've never seen these mythical short male models these posters are talking about, but even if I had, it wouldn't matter anyway, because the implications of being short (or tall) are much more complex than just deciding how sexually attractive you are to women. Not that I would expect them to understand that. From what I've seen most of them are "late bloomer" virgins in their 20s, so their first concern is probably having sex.
No one here is leo, depp or whateverfuck millionaire world-level status halo models, not even close."But leo, depp, and etc etc slay while being shorter than 6'"
Let me entertain this retarded argument for a little more.
Here is a very good looking 5'7 male model with huge status halo getting made fun of for being short.
Click reply if the image doesn't view.
"It is important to just not be short instead of being 6'8"
Then by that logic:
[2]I find this to be rhetorical nonsense. Like, no shit. This same reasoning could be applied to literally ANY situation dealing with your attractiveness or social status.
- It's "more important" not to be Crouzon's-tier facially disfigured than it is to be 100% flawless down to the last autistic micrometer of facial dimensions.
- It's "more important" not to be a deformed Klinefelter's patient than it is to have 9 inch wrists and 26 inch bideltoid.
- It's "more important" not to be NW3 and beyond than it is to be an untouched NW0 that hasn't lost even one hair follicle.
- It's "more important" not to be a kissless, handholdless, hugless virgin at 30 than it is to be a legendary casanova with a 300 slaycount
- It's "more important" not to have a medical micropenis than it is to have a big dick.
- It's "more important" not to be a homeless beggar sucking dick for pocket change than it is to be a millionaire
- It's "more important" not to be dying of terminal cancer than it is to be in absolutely perfect health with no nutritional deficiencies or vitamin/mineral imbalances.
And so on. Saying these things doesn't "prove" or tell anyone anything important about anything. It's a trite and banal statement that is so self-evident that it's meaningless.
"Look at napoleon/(insert some r/short manlet glory story)"
[3]While all these statements are historically accurate, it doesn't change the fact that this is all bullshit cope. This whole post reads like one of the novel-length essays the idiots on r/short post whenever they need to lick each other's wounded egos.
But guess what? It's 2017, and nobody knows or cares about any of Napoleon's "military campaigns", tactical skill, political accomplishments, conquests, and so on. With the exception of old, balding, wrinkled history buffs masturbating to Marcus Aurelius' dialogues, the only thing anyone "knows" about Napoleon today is the "complex" named after him about being short, and how having it means you're an insecure, angry little man.
Whether he was or wasn't short isn't even really relevant. As you rightfully pointed out, Napoleon wasn't even short for his time. He was 169 cm, dead average for his time period and ethnic group. But nobody knows this or cares. Reality is perception, and if people perceive him as being "short", "insecure", and all the things they attribute to "short men" today, then that's what he is. End of story.
It's the same as that OkCupid study showing that women view 80% of men as "unattractive" despite them being average or even slightly above average looking. Are these men actually ugly? No. But the women perceive them as ugly, and that's what matters.
Can you be famous, popular, have sex, and blahblahblah as a short man? Sure. It's possible. Just like it's possible you might win the lottery the next time you play. Or like it's possible you might be struck by lightning the next time there's a thunderstorm, or run over by a bus the next time you go jogging. It's not LIKELY at all, but it's "possible".
How important is height, really? It depends on who you ask. If you've never been a short man, you most likely place very little value on height relative to whatever your more pressing physical flaw(s) is/are. A guy who's 6'2", but NW3 and losing hair by the day probably won't care much about height and likely to argue that it's something that matters very little, but when it comes to balding? THAT'S a death sentence! Same goes for someone who's got cystic acne, badly recessed facial bones, and so on.
II. Study done on effect of height in reproductive success (used by @RedPilledStemcel ) and the main point of this thread:
Here @RedPilledStemcel acts like this study is the end all be all trump card to disprove the advantage of height on smv.
I assume that he just skimmed through the abstract looking for sentences then suddenly saying "OH I AM RIGHT HEIGHT DOESN'T MATTER"
Well, let us take a look in depth on the article used.
A curvilinear effect of height on reproductive success in human males
Human male height is associated with mate choice and intra-sexual competition, and therefore potentially with reproductive success. A literature review (n = 18) on the relationship between male height and reproductive success revealed ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Here is what @RedPilledStemcel keeps referring to:
We investigated the associations between height, education, income and the number of surviving children in a large longitudinal sample of men (n = 3,578; Wisconsin Longitudinal Study), who likely had ended their reproductive careers (e.g. > 64 years). There was a curvilinear association between height and number of children, with men of average height attaining the highest reproductive success. This curvilinear relationship remained after controlling for education and income, which were associated with both reproductive success and height. Average height men also married at a younger age than shorter and taller men, and the effect of height diminished after controlling for this association. Thus, average height men partly achieved higher reproductive success by marrying at a younger age. On the basis of our literature review and our data, we conclude that men of average height most likely have higher reproductive success than either short or tall men.
I quote from heightcel, who already debunked this:
[link]What these results show
What these results don't show
- Men of average stature got married at a younger age and (understandably) ended up having more children than their taller or shorter peers
Nobody here cares about "reproductive success" or (if they've been here long enough and/or have any common sense) marriage.
- Men of average stature are more sexually desirable or attractive to women of any age range
- Taller men do not have an advantage in the sexual marketplace
- It is better to be of average height, rather than tall or short, in order to have sex with the largest amount of different women ("slay")
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sb...2/art00005
Quote:Two meta-analyses were conducted to assess whether females desire male romantic partners who are as tall or taller than themselves more so than males desire female romantic partners who are of equal or shorter stature than themselves. A directional significance test of the difference between the weighted mean effect sizes (rs) for males and females showed that the strength of the effect of body height on dating/mating preference was greater for females evaluating males (r=.41)than for males evaluating females (r=.36). Homogeneity tests indicated, however, that the height effect was not consistent across studies included in each of the analyses. Overall, the findings render support for the male-taller norm in romantic attraction. Directions for future research based on potential moderators of the relationship between body height and dating/mating preference are provided.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...1105000293
Quote:Human mate preferences are related to many morphological traits, such as female waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), male height or facial symmetry. People also vary in preferences for sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS = male height/female height) between themselves and a potential partner. Here, we demonstrate that women adjust their preference for SDS not only in relation to their own height but also in relation to (1) the phase of menstrual cycle during which their preferences were studied and (2) the sexual strategy (short- versus long-term) they were asked to choose. Taller males (larger SDS) were preferred more often when women were in the follicular (i.e. fertile) phase of their menstrual cycle and when the partners were chosen for short-term relationships. These effects were independent of woman's height. The results show that women in a potentially fertile phase of their menstrual cycle and when choosing a partner who might be less likely to invest in children select genes of taller males.
"Reproductive success" and its correlation to height is what the study is addressing, not "the literature at large" in any respect that would be relevant to any poster here (sexual attraction, sexual market value, variance of sexual partners, frequency of sexual encounters)
Just to reiterate: the study defines "reproductive success" as number of offspring, not number of sexual encounters, variance of partners, attractiveness, etc, which is what people here care about
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not just a slack jawed retard that either
A.) didn't realize this
B.) didn't understand the study
and that you were instead either willfully trying to use the study's ambiguous wording ("reproductive success") to misrepresent its results by pretending it proves that taller men
I demonstrated that the study does not prove either of those two things or anything of the sort, and in fact has nothing to do with sexual market value, attraction, etc.
- Do not have a significant advantage in the sexual marketplace
- Are not considered universally more sexually attractive than average or short men
It was a study performed on men over 64 years old to gauge how their height affected the number of offspring they had relative to their short and average height peers. That is it
Neither I, nor anyone else making the claim ("""""height theorists"""""), need to show that taller men have are considered universally more sexually attractive and have much greater sexual marketplace value than average and short men because it has already been demonstrated, MULTIPLE TIMES
I linked 2 studies that demonstrated that women prefer taller men over shorter ones (that includes average-height men) for short and long-term relationships, and that this preference is statistically significant
Note that these are 2 studies, but they are not the only 2 studies. I and multiple other posters have linked numerous other studies in the past
Aside from studies, evidence of tall stature being preferred and important include:
It's laughable that you accuse me of "speculative rationale" when you outright lied about the results of your study and acted like it was proving something it wasn't. Get the fuck out of here lmao
- The "when he's over 6 foot" Vine
- The Heightism Exposed Twitter page
- The ubiquitous and exorbitant "height prerequisites" of women on Tinder, PoF, etc
- The universal mockery, derision and vitriol aimed at short men by society at large
- The tacit acceptance and justification of the above by society; when any short man asks for respect and to be treated like a human being they are immediately accused of "Napoleon complex", "little man syndrome", etc
Every time someone like you posts some bullshit self-serving nonsense about "lanklets" or being tall "not mattering" other tall copers start a huge circlejerk until someone like me comes along and blows it the fuck out. It's getting super fucking old
TLDR: Reproductive success =/= attraction, reproductive success =/= smv, reprodcutive success =/= frequency of sexual intercourse with more attractive women.
Please do not make the same mistakes and just quote my TLDR and make us go in circles, read in depth.
Also lmfao at the sample of people older than 60, JFL.
Having 0.25 less kids at 6'3 than at 5'9 doesn't disprove shit.
III. Few studies on the advantage of height on smv:
The Perceived Benefits of Height: Strength, Dominance, Social Concern, and Knowledge among Bolivian Native Amazonians
Research in industrial countries suggests that, with no other knowledge about a person, positive traits are attributed to taller people and correspondingly, that taller people have slightly better socioeconomic status (SES). However, research in some non-industrialized contexts has shown no...
journals.plos.org
Research in industrial countries suggests that, with no other knowledge about a person, positive traits are attributed to taller people and correspondingly, that taller people have slightly better socioeconomic status (SES).
Human Height Is Positively Related to Interpersonal Dominance in Dyadic Interactions
Across cultures, taller stature is linked to increased social status, but the potential reasons why this should be are unclear. One potential explanation is that taller individuals are more likely to win a dyadic confrontation with a competitor (i.e., ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[4]Across cultures, taller stature is linked to increased social status, but the potential reasons why this should be are unclear. One potential explanation is that taller individuals are more likely to win a dyadic confrontation with a competitor (i.e., they are more dominant), which leads to higher social rank. Although some previous studies have shown that perceptions of status or dominance are related to height, and are therefore consistent with such an explanation, there is surprisingly little research testing whether height actually has any influence on the behavioural outcomes in real-life social interactions. Here, we present three naturalistic observational studies demonstrating that height predicts interpersonal dominance during brief dyadic interactions. Study 1 investigated the likelihood of giving way in a narrow passage (N = 92); Study 2 investigated giving way in a busy shopping street, plus the likelihood of colliding with another individual (N = 1,108); and Study 3 investigated the likelihood of maintaining a linear path while walking, and potentially entering another individual’s personal space (N = 1,056). We conclude that human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance, and may well contribute to the widely observed positive association between height and social status.
When the researchers controlled for shoulder-to-hip ratio, they found that a larger penis had a greater effect on attractiveness for taller men. It's possible that a larger penis just looked more proportional on a taller man's body, the researchers wrote, or it could be that women were biased against shorter men to the extent that even large genitals didn't help.
In this video, even by making the manlets millionairs, it didn't change the opinion of the females:
"Muh its over for 6'4+ manmore """lanklets"""
Tagging a few pathetic mongoloids: @KrissKross @ZyzzBrah
Requested tags:
@The Dude Abides @Coping @Bluepill @dodt
Last edited: