[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.

[pbhjpbhj]

I was going more on a regular meal portion than an analysis of calorie content, fat, salt, additives and such.

FWIW a medium bowl of noodles is 2MJ (according to WolframAlpha; tea tonight, but we had pork left-overs in ours +0.5MJ [or so, not on WA]), Big Mac is listed as 2.2MJ + 1.3MJ for fries.

So that's only 40% more calories.

Big Mac and fries is ~£3.50 in the UK.

Our food was about 35p per portion plus the pork which I'd say was 75p + cooking and cleanup costs [40p?].

On that basis we'll say £1.50 vs £3.50 for 40% more calories as a gross estimate.

So I'm not sure but ...

[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?"