[simonsarris]

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...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination#In_busine...

[sageikosa]

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]

Mnemonic?

[sageikosa]

The scene itself (or the lines themselves) is (are) the mnemonic, something that helps me remember height co-related with command.

[kvb]

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]

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]

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-incom...

[nitrogen]

You might be surprised how common hunger and malnutrition are even in places like the United States.

[Osmium]

The link is still there in the developed world, though perhaps not in the way you'd think: studies have shown that poorer people are more likely to be overweight. One is left to speculate as to why, but clearly if attractiveness is linked to later performance in life, then many of these people would start off at a further disadvantage as a result.

e.g. just this week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21158087

[enraged_camel]

>>One is left to speculate as to why

There is no need for speculation, since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense, which is why lower-income people consume it and become overweight.

Ever noticed how many fast-food restaurants there are in lower-income neighborhoods?

[pbhjpbhj]

>since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense //

Fast-food is not affordable in the UK. It's substantially more costly than preparing your own food. There is no way that we could afford to eat fast-food more than a couple of nights per week; then we'd have to cut the quality of food on other nights considerably.

McDonalds for one adult costs about what we spend on a meal for 4 cooked at home (not including energy costs).

That said friends we have friends on benefits who eat fast food regularly. How they afford it I don't know. They have the heating on all day (with windows open, in winter) and things too, it's all a mystery to me.

[Evbn]

Are you sure, on a calorie basis? McDonald's is far more calorie dense than anything a sane human could make at home.

[Evbn]

I thought it was because the UK rains money on people, free housing and the like.

[001sky]

I would add, the chemistry of stress. Fast food is a counter-stressor, chemically. the body responds to the presence of fatty/salty/sweet/high-carb etc food in a metabolic way.

[edouard1234567]

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)

[aetherson]

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.

[Gmo]

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]

And the difference between universities are by far not as big over here in Europe. (In addition to the sibling comment)

[bjourne]

Sure, but making that argument is entering a mined field. You could as well say that skin color is correlated with intelligence because (I'm just making this up) living in Africa was easier than in harsher climates so their brains got smarter.

Btw, it's easy to see if your hypothesis is correct. Just check the heights of graduate males of tough university programs such as medical research, physics, mathematics etc. I belive that the distribution of their heights will be closer to the population average than the heights of CEO:s, top politicians and other "high-status" jobs. I belive it is because those positions isn't selected to solely on merit, but also on charisma or vaguely defined "leadership qualities."

In my experience, with lots of developers and engineers I've worked with, there is no height bias among them. Tall and short engineers and everyone in between. However, upper management and the sales guys are generally tall guys. Now, assuming that height is positively correlated with intelligence, and assuming that engineers are smarter than management and sales people, that observation makes no sense. :) You would expect to see extra tall engineers (because they need the extra brainpower) and shorter management and sales people.

[aetherson]

Or indeed, height/attractiveness could be (almost certainly are) correlated with self-confidence and assertiveness. Which is obviously something of a chicken/egg thing.

[Evbn]

I don't think confidence or assertiveness cause height

[aetherson]

Heh. Indeed. The chicken-and-egg thing being, "If people like tall or attractive people, and that causes confidence or assertiveness, when tall or attractive people are promoted, is that because other people like them, or because they are confident and assertive?"

[jauer]

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.

[ctbeiser]

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

[jquery]

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.

[jlgreco]

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]

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.

[csense]

> 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]

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]

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.