Tall people are happier, better educated

[nismaratwork]

No, they can cheat easily. You know, glancing from one paper to another.

Pfft... as if tall people would deign to cheat from short people!

 

[drizzle]

Pfft... as if tall people would deign to cheat from short people!

Okay then, explain why do I note that tall people have a slight hunchbacked.

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay then, explain why do I note that tall people have a slight hunchbacked.

Errr... no reason. We slouch to make short people feel like they have a reason to live! Certainly we don't all get together and practice neck-stretches and eyeball maneuvers...

 

[turbo]

Okay then, explain why do I note that tall people have a slight hunchbacked.

Well, if you attend college on a basketball scholarship, and if you need an edge...

 

[nismaratwork]

إقرأ

That's good advice... so tall people just... إقرأ over more shoulders than most!

 

[drizzle]

إقرأ

That's good advice... so tall people just... يقرأون over more shoulders than most!

Correction's mine.

 

[DBTS]

Actually midgets have the advantage more-so than tall people. I remember a guy who was about 4'9" in my class looking at my paper while we were taking an exam, and the professor obviously saw him glancing over because I gave the proff. the look, but the professor did not do anything. We were both, the midget and I, sitting in front of the room as well, so the professor knew what was happening.

 

[nismaratwork]

Correction's mine.

Eep, that'll show me for trying to be cute. Thanks for the quick lesson, I appreciate it!

 

[drizzle]

Eep, that'll show me for trying to be cute. Thanks for the quick lesson, I appreciate it!

Awww! That made me blush.

 

[Klockan3]

What is wrong with the people posting in this thread, why couldn't it be that tall people actually are better educated overall? What is so preposterous about that? To me it seems to go well with the notion that taller people are overall treated more respectfully simply for being taller. In terms of education it would mean that you get a better response from your teachers and thus more likely to end up liking the subjects which in turn makes you prone to take your education further.

Right now you sound like the bunch of people who think that commercials are a waste of money, stating things like "how many do you know anyone who bought something simply because of a commercial?".

A poll might not be the most exact way to measure things but polls are still very good as long as you take into account peoples tendencies to tamper with their answers. For example, is there any reason to believe that on average happy people overestimate their length by 1 inch while unhappy people underestimates their height by the same amount? You can likely find such tendencies, but that they would add up to over an inch is unlikely.

 

[FlexGunship]

...average happy people overestimate their length by 1 inch...

Firstly, I am not average. Secondly, I totally didn't overestimate, I swear... I measured. Thirdly, I wasn't fully "happy" (as you say) at the time... soooooo...

 

[Klockan3]

Firstly, I am not average. Secondly, I totally didn't overestimate, I swear... I measured. Thirdly, I wasn't fully "happy" (as you say) at the time... soooooo...

This isn't about you flexing your gunship

 

[FlexGunship]

This isn't about you flexing your gunship

No need to flex. My gunship is an MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator.

...game, set, match. Flex.EDIT: It occurred to me that someone might consider that lewd. I swear to you, that is the exact name of that vehicle.

 

[nismaratwork]

What is wrong with the people posting in this thread, why couldn't it be that tall people actually are better educated overall? What is so preposterous about that?[1] To me it seems to go well with the notion that taller people are overall treated more respectfully simply for being taller. In terms of education it would mean that you get a better response from your teachers and thus more likely to end up liking the subjects which in turn makes you prone to take your education further.
[2]
Right now you sound like the bunch of idiots[3] who thinks that commercials are a waste of money, stating things like "how many do you know anyone who bought something simply because of a commercial?".

A poll might not be the most exact way to measure things but polls are still very good as long as you take into account peoples tendencies to tamper with their answers.[4]For example, is there any reason to believe that on average happy people overestimate their length by 1 inch while unhappy people underestimates their height by the same amount?[5] You can likely find such tendencies, but that they would add up to over an inch is unlikely.

The following are responses to the bolded portion that precedes them.

#1: The premise? Your delivery? The fact that we HAVE discussed that already...

#2: On average girls are taller in the formative stages you describe, so they should be the primary benefactors of being tall in school. I don't see it. I think your premise is a sound logical construction that, like an elegantly wrong theory, has no physical reality.

#3: Way to win hearts and minds... I always like to lead with, "idiot" when I'm trying to have a discussion with others.

#4: Right... they CAN be useful, and you have to keep in mind and X factor that isn't easy to quantify. This is why polls are the product of statistics and art, but studies are the product of science. It's on you to show how they ARE useful here, when compared to the views of others. So far, you've just managed to be caustic.

#5: Don't cross the streams! In much the same way that you've injected "length" for height, then transposed them later, you can't simply reverse the premise and suppose that happiness causes a psychosomatic delusion. If you're more of a math guy, think quaternions.

Closing: Maybe if you construct a functional thesis, support it, and do so without calling anyone an idiot, you'll be practically acting 'all grown up..'.

 

[Klockan3]

#1: The premise? Your delivery? The fact that we HAVE discussed that already...

I read the entire thread and the most constructive I could find was things that could be summed up with "Why would education correlate with length?? Obviously dumb study".

#2: On average girls are taller in the formative stages you describe, so they should be the primary benefactors of being tall in school. I don't see it. I think your premise is a sound logical construction that, like an elegantly wrong theory, has no physical reality.

Don't they get better grades and in larger numbers continue on to higher education? What more do you need? And obviously due to this poll I got more data to back my "theory" up than you got data to show that it isn't correlating. Public consensus do not mean anything at all, as far as this thread goes all data showed points towards this. If you disagree perform your own study to try to show that it isn't true.

#3: Way to win hearts and minds... I always like to lead with, "idiot" when I'm trying to have a discussion with others.

It is great if you want a discussion, it is bad if you want to convince people. And frankly when people dismiss something just because it doesn't cater to what they feel is the truth without having any evidence at all to back them up then they are idiots. Of course you can't say anything for sure based on a one time poll but it says way more than anyones personal experience.

It's on you to show how they ARE useful here, when compared to the views of others.

Science is there to find the truth, no questions are bad. Correlation between length and education level is interesting since it obviously goes against peoples intuition.

#5: Don't cross the streams! In much the same way that you've injected "length" for height, then transposed them later, you can't simply reverse the premise and suppose that happiness causes a psychosomatic delusion. If you're more of a math guy, think quaternions.

It is an important factor actually since you go by inches. 1 inch is fairly large so if you are in between two inches and have to round then you might round differently depending on how you feel.

Closing: Maybe if you construct a functional thesis, support it, and do so without calling anyone an idiot, you'll be practically acting 'all grown up..'.

Just like everyone else in this thread you mean.

 

[nismaratwork]

I read the entire thread and the most constructive I could find was things that could be summed up with "Why would education correlate with length?? Obviously dumb study".

Don't they get better grades and in larger numbers continue on to higher education? What more do you need? And obviously due to this poll I got more data to back my "theory" up than you got data to show that it isn't correlating.

It is great if you want a discussion, it is bad if you want to convince people.

Science is there to find the truth, no questions are bad. Correlation between length and education level is interesting since it obviously goes against peoples intuition.

It is an important factor actually since you go by inches. 1 inch is fairly large so if you are in between two inches and have to round then you might round differently depending on how you feel.

Just like everyone else in this thread you mean.

You really don't get the whole, "length vs. height" issue... do you? Beyond that your responses have been so selective or obtuse as to be meaningless.

 

[drizzle]

I thought I was the shortest among those who posted here... Seems like someone else is shorter than me. WAAAY SHORTER.

 

[Klockan3]

You really don't get the whole, "length vs. height" issue... do you? Beyond that your responses have been so selective or obtuse as to be meaningless.

Height and length are interchangeable when you talk about humans. If I am wrong then please enlighten me. Edit: Just because one is more common among laymen than the other do not mean that the other is wrong.

 

[nismaratwork]

Height and length are interchangeable when you talk about humans. If I am wrong then please enlighten me. Edit: Just because one is more common among laymen than the other do not mean that the other is wrong.

No. No they're not. Length for instance specifically refers to linear measurements of fixed objects. Length is also a specific measurement of horses... from nose to tail. In every example I can find, length is NOT interchangeable with height.

An example:

Height:
•the vertical dimension of extension; distance from the base of something to the top
•acme: the highest level or degree attainable; the highest stage of development; "his landscapes were deemed the acme of beauty"; "the artist's gifts are at their acme"; "at the height of her career"; "the peak of perfection"; "summer was at its peak"; "... ...
•stature: (of a standing person) the distance from head to foot
•altitude: elevation especially above sea level or above the Earth's surface; "the altitude gave her a headache"

Whereas the same cannot be said of

Length:
•the linear extent in space from one end to the other; the longest dimension of something that is fixed in place; "the length of the table was 5 feet"
•duration: continuance in time; "the ceremony was of short duration"; "he complained about the length of time required"
•the property of being the extent of something from beginning to end; "the editor limited the length of my article to 500 words"
•distance: size of the gap between two places; "the distance from New York to Chicago"; "he determined the length of the shortest line segment joining the two points"
•a section of something that is long and narrow; "a length of timber"; "a length of tubing"

I've added the bold for emphasis. You can't claim some obscure usage among non "layman" (the laity of what, I don't know in General Discussion) and then hope that nobody calls you on it.

 

[DanP]

Must be true some economist at Princeton says so. He also says "income is the thing".



http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090729/us_time/08599191325600

I hate these articles that do not link to the "research" so we can judge just how well or poorly it was done.

It;s a known psychological effect that ppl with some phenotypes (generally considered good looking, and height is a part of this) are perceived by others as more competent, more righteous and so on. As a result it wouldn't surprise me that the social perception of others on you will have such effects.

We are not born equal. This is the biggest lie told in the western world ever, which we should quit telling to our youth. Some of us are simply born with better phenotypes, and in better positioned social clans.

 

[nismaratwork]

It;s a known psychological effect that ppl with some phenotypes (generally considered good looking, and height is a part of this) are perceived by others as more competent, more righteous and so on. As a result it wouldn't surprise me that the social perception of others on you will have such effects.

We are not born equal. This is the biggest lie told in the western world ever, which we should quit telling to our youth. Some of us are simply born with better phenotypes, and in better positioned social clans.

Is it more advantageous to be handsome, or tall? Presumably there's a range of height that people find pleasing, because I don't see someone of Posehn or O'Neill size being perceived as anything except unusually tall. If you fit into the most desirable height range, how do you compete with someone who's 2 inches shorter, but has a face that's considerably more handsome?

If you can't answer these questions (and no one can, yet at least) then I wouldn't be so sure how the average person's advantages and disadvantages stack up. In the end the BIGGEST advantage... the one that blows all of the others out of the water... is being born into a higher socio-economic class. What. A. Shock. Yep, turns out that if you're American-Samoan, but very wealthy, you're kids can overcome virtually all of the social obstacles that equally talented children of average-income families could. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but these snapshots don't exactly overwhelm me when other factors could be at play.

Beauty, height, youth, and potency... all of these are valued in today's man, right? Well, Hugh Hefner, who has none of those things (except the latter with chemical aid) is getting married to someone who could be his great-granddaughter. What stellar quality, other than having no internal voice that shrieks, "no!" and money does he have right now?

Who cares what these do in a vacuum: show me how they pan out in the real world vs. controls.

 

[DanP]

Is it more advantageous to be handsome, or tall? Presumably there's a range of height that people find pleasing, because I don't see someone of Posehn or O'Neill size being perceived as anything except unusually tall. If you fit into the most desirable height range, how do you compete with someone who's 2 inches shorter, but has a face that's considerably more handsome?

If you can't answer these questions (and no one can, yet at least) then I wouldn't be so sure how the average person's advantages and disadvantages stack up. In the end the BIGGEST advantage... the one that blows all of the others out of the water... is being born into a higher socio-economic class. What. A. Shock. Yep, turns out that if you're American-Samoan, but very wealthy, you're kids can overcome virtually all of the social obstacles that equally talented children of average-income families could. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but these snapshots don't exactly overwhelm me when other factors could be at play.

They are additive. Every bit of advantage, no matter how small, is useful. Life is sometimes a game of beeing perceived better than somebody else with eve 1%, and zbang, you landed the job, or whatever else.

Looks , and biases regarding looks also play important rules in perception of others during jury deliberation, police investigations and so on.

Beauty, height, youth, and potency... all of these are valued in today's man, right? Well, Hugh Hefner, who has none of those things (except the latter with chemical aid) is getting married to someone who could be his great-granddaughter. What stellar quality, other than having no internal voice that shrieks, "no!" and money does he have right now?

Who cares what these do in a vacuum: show me how they pan out in the real world vs. controls.

Status. Competence in what he does. He built an empire. Questions as old as this world, simple answers. Those are all additive to his money.

 

[nismaratwork]

They are additive. Every bit of advantage, no matter how small, is useful. Life is sometimes a game of beeing perceived better than somebody else with eve 1%, and zbang, you landed the job, or whatever else.

Looks , and biases regarding looks also play important rules in perception of others during jury deliberation, police investigations and so on.



Status. Competence in what he does. He built an empire. Questions as old as this world, simple answers. Those are all additive to his money.

Wow, you just dodged every question I asked you. Hugh Hefner... the aging skin-flick magnate who's company may have to sell off the mansion has STATUS?! I think you must have meant to say laughing-stock, because that's what the headlines are all about.

As for "additive", that wasn't my question... I get that if you scored a perfect 100/100 on the genetic/socio-economic lottery you're in good shape. I was asking about the interaction of multiple additive and SUBTRACTIVE factors, or how two different types of "pluses" compare. I'll take your complete dodge as not having a clue.

P.S. Jury Deliberation, really? So who convinces the jury: the handsome guy with a stutter and a 6th grade vocabulary, or the average guy with a smooth demeanor and a way with words? Again, I get that it's best to have everything going for you, but that's not that question.

 

[DanP]

Wow, you just dodged every question I asked you. Hugh Hefner... the aging skin-flick magnate who's company may have to sell off the mansion has STATUS?! I think you must have meant to say laughing-stock, because that's what the headlines are all about.

He has. When one will build an empire as he did, one will also afford whatever headlines the newspapers and tabloids will make for you, and they will just result in more exposure for you. Untill then, one can claim Hefner has no status, but the reality is a bit different.

P.S. Jury Deliberation, really? So who convinces the jury: the handsome guy with a stutter and a 6th grade vocabulary, or the average guy with a smooth demeanor and a way with words? Again, I get that it's best to have everything going for you, but that's not that question.

Do yourself a favor and read a book on psychology of judiciary processes. You will understand.

 

[Klockan3]

No. No they're not. Length for instance specifically refers to linear measurements of fixed objects. Length is also a specific measurement of horses... from nose to tail. In every example I can find, length is NOT interchangeable with height.

An example:



Whereas the same cannot be said of


I've added the bold for emphasis. You can't claim some obscure usage among non "layman" (the laity of what, I don't know in General Discussion) and then hope that nobody calls you on it.

Length refers to the longest dimension and on humans that would be "height". So technically it is more correct since it is a better defined word even though people in general don't use it. It is kinda like stating your mass instead of weight since technically it is mass we are talking about.

Also in my mother tongue (not English but related) we basically use the word length instead of height on people, height is only used for fixed objects like trees and houses. Which in turn means that even though I know that in English you usually use height I often write length, I wouldn't do that though if it wasn't for the fact that there is no reason why height would be a more appropriate word than length for measuring the longest distance from your heels to the top of your head.

As for why height is a bad word look here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle
When it is on the ground its longest dimension is the one perpendicular to the ground so it is called height, once it reaches space you can't orient it like that so suddenly height becomes length... In the same way as soon as a human goes to sleep his height would plummet to a few decimeters while he would suddenly have a length while the length is not defined when he stands up... And how do you define the height of a baby, since he can't stand up is it from his palms to his shoulders?

And with laymen I mean people who don't use the definitions of the words but instead use the words based on their experience with them. For example mass and weight. Mass is the correct term but none uses that simply because the other is so well established. Now, even though it isn't really wrong to use the word height for measuring humans if you go by the definition neither is length.

 

[Char. Limit]

Also in my mother tongue (not English but related) we basically use the word length instead of height on people, height is only used for fixed objects like trees and houses. Which in turn means that even though I know that in English you usually use height I often write length, I wouldn't do that though if it wasn't for the fact that there is no reason why height would be a more appropriate word than length for measuring the longest distance from your heels to the top of your head.

What IS your mother tongue anyway?

 

[Klockan3]

What IS your mother tongue anyway?

Swedish. But it is the same with any Scandinavian language and in Germany at least.

 

[nismaratwork]

He has. When one will build an empire as he did, one will also afford whatever headlines the newspapers and tabloids will make for you, and they will just result in more exposure for you. Untill then, one can claim Hefner has no status, but the reality is a bit different.




Do yourself a favor and read a book on psychology of judiciary processes. You will understand.

Wow, I'm a little astonished by your arrogance. You're entitled to your opinions, but they are just that... and your recommendation to me is simply an insult. Why bother to post here if you refuse to answer direct questions? Clearly you're a poseur with nothing to offer, who just wanted to bluster. Unless you care to go back to our first exchange and start answering questions then I'm done with you. You're so far beyond the original point about the relative advantages of various attributes that it would be funny if it weren't so annoying.

Length refers to the longest dimension and on humans that would be "height". So technically it is more correct since it is a better defined word even though people in general don't use it. It is kinda like stating your mass instead of weight since technically it is mass we are talking about.

I want to say you've read this selectively, but only in the sense that you took words in one of the definitions and ignored their context. It is only the longest dimension of a "STATIONARY OBJECT"... and the example is a table. Take the hint. It's OK to be wrong, but it's truly absurd to go to these lengths to argue with etymology.

Also in my mother tongue (not English but related)

HOLD IT
You don't think that informing me that English isn't your first language might have helped avoid this discussion ENTIRELY?! I'm not going to argue semantics in Swedish vs. English... an absurdity on its face. Please, next time don't wait for your third post on the topic to fill people in on that when its relevant.

...we basically use the word length instead of height on people, height is only used for fixed objects like trees and houses. Which in turn means that even though I know that in English you usually use height I often write length, I wouldn't do that though if it wasn't for the fact that there is no reason why height would be a more appropriate word than length for measuring the longest distance from your heels to the top of your head.

That's great, but once again I'm not arguing about how this is done in Swedish, and NEVER WAS. When it comes to Swedish, I'll take your word for it, and never would have commented on your grammar had I known about this in the first place. Come on man...

As for why height is a bad word look here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle
When it is on the ground its longest dimension is the one perpendicular to the ground so it is called height, once it reaches space you can't orient it like that so suddenly height becomes length... In the same way as soon as a human goes to sleep his height would plummet to a few decimeters while he would suddenly have a length while the length is not defined when he stands up... And how do you define the height of a baby, since he can't stand up is it from his palms to his shoulders?

It's absurd to assume that we should inject relative position in free-fall, when our lives are spent on Earth. When we're talking about who experiences what, when, near the event horizon of a black hole, I'll specify the frames of reference in the relevant coordinate system. When we're talking about PEOPLE in a thread titled "Tall people..." I really don't feel that I need to interject: "height, relatively speaking, using Earthbound conventions". You're Swedish, not Venusian... this shouldn't be a hard one. It's called CONTEXT (sammanhang), and it's painfully obvious here.

And with laymen I mean people who don't use the definitions of the words but instead use the words based on their experience with them. For example mass and weight. Mass is the correct term but none uses that simply because the other is so well established. Now, even though it isn't really wrong to use the word height for measuring humans if you go by the definition neither is length.

For all of your talk, you forget that when it comes to linguistics, "correct," is relative. You're allowed a variety of ways to express yourself, and if this is just a linguistic SNAFU, that's fine. If you're making the case that in the context of this thread, "length", then "height", used to describe the same attribute in the same paragraph is a bit mad.

 

[Char. Limit]

In English, using the word "length" when referring to people... well... it's not really appropriate to talk about.

 

[nismaratwork]

In English, using the word "length" when referring to people... well... it's not really appropriate to talk about.

I admit, that's the first place my filthy little mind went. I thought perhaps it was another measurement for some that correlated to higher confidence. Maybe you walk into a bar and just announce that while you're only 3'11", you're hung like a bull-moose and it's just instant $$$ and ladies... Yeah, I said it.

 

[chiro]

I admit, that's the first place my filthy little mind went. I thought perhaps it was another measurement for some that correlated to higher confidence. Maybe you walk into a bar and just announce that while you're only 3'11", you're hung like a bull-moose and it's just instant $$$ and ladies... Yeah, I said it.

cue the music and D-grade plot...

bow chicka wow wow

 

[Klockan3]

I am sorry for going a bit off topic, I just like discussing things. I have roughly an infinite amount of patience so I can literary discuss things for a days. I just want to explain how/why/what etc to see what people think. Also I don't really see why anyone would think about penis size when they hear about someones length.

 

[Char. Limit]

I am sorry for going a bit off topic, I just like discussing things. I have roughly an infinite amount of patience so I can literary discuss things for a days. I just want to explain how/why/what etc to see what people think. Also I don't really see why anyone would think about penis size when they hear about someones length.

Obviously you don't live in America then. Because when I hear about someone's "length", that's the first thing I think of.

 

[lisab]

Obviously you don't live in America then. Because when I hear about someone's "length", that's the first thing I think of.

Yep. Just the way it is, I guess.

 

[DanP]

Wow, I'm a little astonished by your arrogance. You're entitled to your opinions, but they are just that... and your recommendation to me is simply an insult. Why bother to post here if you refuse to answer direct questions? Clearly you're a poseur with nothing to offer, who just wanted to bluster. Unless you care to go back to our first exchange and start answering questions then I'm done with you. You're so far beyond the original point about the relative advantages of various attributes that it would be funny if it weren't so annoying.

I will repeat my recommendation to you. If you want to know in what way looks based biases can influence legal processes, do yourself a favor and read a book on the subject before opening your mouth with personal attacks. You will learn one or two new things. You decide now if it worths for you or not to invest some time in reading. Generally the members of this board are not adverse to it, and I am very sorry that you find a recommendation to read an insult. But yeah, I can't help with how you feel.

...that it would be funny if it weren't so annoying.

Are you letting someone over internet to have so much power over you that you became annoyed? Interesting.