Tall people are happier, better educated

[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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

See, this is why I've had so many Iranian friends. You guys always seem to appreciate my sense of humor, and I yours.

[Several of my closest friends over the years have been Iranians]

 

[nismaratwork]

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.



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

Yes Dan, you have amazing power over me... I can see that this is going nowhere... you're dogmatic and unwilling to support your position as always.