Were I Dick Masterson, I’d have a slightly different take on this subject. As it is, I’ll simply note some oddities, and speculate.
A recent paper by Anne Case and Christina Paxson of Princeton University, Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes, is currently attracting some media attention.
Bluntly put, based upon a series of datasets from the UK and US (starting with a longitudinal survey of children born in 1958), the two researchers conclude that “Taller people are smarter”.
We’ve known for some time that taller people (at least men) tend to earn more; it’s hitherto been assumed that this is due both to early-childhood nutrition as well as people being biased towards those who are taller.
While early-childhood nutrition still bears a role, it now appears that higher earnings come down to a much simpler argument: Taller people are smarter. (no doubt in part because of better nutrition).
What throws a bizarre spin upon this is a study from 2002 (based, as far as I can tell, on partly the same dataset Case and Paxson used), which concludes that “Short women [are] more successful with men“. Short women are more likely to be in long-term relationships, and more likely to have children. Similarly, tall men are also more successful with women. No surprises in that last.
Yet if the thesis of taller people being smarter holds, it inevitably means that less intelligent women are more successful with men.
This seems bizarrely counter-intuitive as a survival strategy for the species.
And of course it’s likely to make feminists hopping mad.
Now, I can toss out several ideas.
1. A smaller woman requires less nourishment, leaving more food, for a given quantity of food hunted or gathered, for a larger, stronger male and their offspring.
2.Tall women probably hit puberty slightly later. When our ancestors had 20 year lifespans, this could have a huge negative impact on reproduction.
3. It may well be that genetically, the male’s intellectual contribution is far more important than the female’s. This is a decidedly weak hypothesis, however, with little, if any, genetic evidence to support it. Even if true, the mother tends to have a disproportionate (as compared to the father) influence upon early childhood development. It would, however, explain female bias towards smart men, and a surprising relative male indifference to female intellect.
4. One or both studies are wrong; or I am mistaken to conflate them and simplify them in the way that I have.
5. Even if the research is sound, the studies may simply not apply outside the US and UK.
All that said, it’s certainly food for thought.
Oh, and, just for Dick… if taller people are smarter, and men are taller than women…
-wolfe
Taller people are smarter is your argument then? And you make that claim based on higher salaries for taller people? Maybe it’s got nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with ‘intimidation’, i.e, tall people are generally bigger than smaller people. Though this would have to be subjective and depend on one’s charisma. I once had a 4′7 Japanense MD (no joke), when he walked into the office and went past the filing cabinets, he suddenly disappeared from view, and then reappeared on the other side. Very scary individual, not yoda like at all.
Four foot seven, not 47.
@Female no, that’s not my argument. Check out the study and the news reports; they’re linked. It’s the argument of Anne Case and Christina Paxson that taller people are smarter. (and it’s not due to intimidation, etc.)
By contrast I outline a couple of arguments that support the converse; however, their paper appears to cover them.
I’m not sure what to think. It’s a strange and striking result.
Obviously, it doesn’t mean “short person X” is less intelligent than “tall person Y”.
That said, they’re the first (as far as I know) to seriously suggest a link between height and intelligence.
As for your short (”very scary”) physician, most successful short men seem to have outsized egos. (Wasn’t this discussed on mabtw, or am I wrong?). “Napoleon syndrome” seems an apt lay descriptor.
-wolfe
Ha! No, not my physician, a former Managing Director. Japanense men are such misogynists. And racist. Usually. Yes, I have talked about the small man syndrome previously n mabtw — it definately exists!!
I need to amend my former statement about Japanese men being misogynists. Most Japanense people raised in the Western world are not misogynists and I think it would be rare to find female haters amongst those under 40 years. My statement is soley based on experience with Japanese men over 40 who had little experience with the Western world. Phew. Hopefully everyone can now tell I am a realist, not a racist.
wolfe, I have had a think about that study and yes I agree its a puzzle. All I can think is that the children who are scoring higher on cognitive tests must already be taller than most of their peers and that this is leading the adults to treat them differently to shorter children. Perhaps they are given more responsibility in that they are told to look out for their shorter friends? Perhaps this means they get spoken to differently, on a more mature level than shorter children? Perhaps this affects their overall cogntive abilities in childhood and later on in adult life? I couldnt read the entire study so I dont know whether it mentioned whether the smarter children were also observed to be taller than the shorter ones. If they were, then I dont think its really the genetics of height that have anything to do with the genes for intelligence, instead, it is just the environment stimulating the development of the intelligence.
@Female, yeah I knew he wasn’t your personal physician; I simply meant “your” as in “your [example of a]“.
I agree with your amendment on the Japanese. Nisei are, in my experience largely indistinguishable from any other native North American, except they probably work slightly harder and have better diets.
Native Japanese men, on the other hand… well, I spent some time in Korea on business, and I’ve rarely seen such racist behavior — against both Koreans and whites. Oddly, in Japan itself, my experience was much more pleasant. Curious.
-wolfe
@Female Back to the paper.
to a complete PDF copy that you don’t have to pay $5 for.
In the unlikely event you don’t have a PDF reader, here’s where you can get one, from Adobe.
Your hypotheses are reasonable (selection from adults based on height and consequently perceived maturity), but the fact that this begins well before schooling — at age 3 — makes me suspect this is not what’s occurring.
The two authors postulate a series of non-social bias factors where height and intelligence are linked:
- nutrition
- uterine environment
- chemical channels (e.g. insulin, thyroid)
- genetics (largely unknown territory).
-wolfe
Okay, I think in the US, MD means Medical Doctor. In Australia, MD means Managing Director, while a Doctor is a GP - General Practictioner.
RE: the paper, I’ll look at it another time.
RE: the main site. That comment Billy just quoted is from last year. I think it is quite pathetic and extremely ‘womanly’ to be bringing up things said that long ago!
I am tired of waiting or wondering if my comments on the main page will be displayed so if you post something to me there, do you mind if I answer it here? You probably will but so be it.
You have just argued that men are less selfish than women because they follow the birkinhead drill code.
I would argue that not all men would follow this directive and even if men are in the majority, less selfish than women, that only applies to a hypothetical emergencey situation in your example. I would argue that in day to day living, women are far less selfish than men are. For instance, who, in the majority, give up their careers in order to stay home and raise children? It’s always just been assumed that women should be the ones to do it and in fact I’m sure the historical difference in male/female wages is probably directly related to this social assumption.
@Female. Yeah, MD vs GP. Let’s use the US terms. Seriously, on this the US is right. Trust me . I don’t mind using UK/commonwealth spelling/terminology where it makes sense. But the UK is wrong on what a billion is (it’s a thousand million, not a million million, sorry), and the whole weird MD thing is rejected by most of the anglosphere post 1985.
You can argue centre or honour, but on MD, you lose, sorry. Use COO or CEO. (Chief Operating Officer or Chief Executive Officer). Which do they use in Shanghai or Moscow? You got it, the American way. Sorry.
I would really prefer you not transfer arguments to here from Dick’s page (what you call the “main” page. I don’t blame you for doing so, but I’d prefer you do not do so.
What I shall do is this: I’ll create an open thread on this site where you may do so. But I’d prefer you not distort most threads here with content from Dick’s site.
-wolfe
COO, CFO and CEO are also used here. It was also a Japanese owned company’s AU subsidiary and they used the term MD, and wore Star Trek outfits offshore.
No argument; let’s agree to use US terms on that though. But “Star Trek outfits”… yikes.
You scare me.
-wolfe
I didn’t say I wore them. Outfits and secret bows were reserved for the men, luckily.
I have no doubt that taller or shorter has nothing to do with intelligence. I doubt that any basketball or football team is full of a bunch of smarties. That study is clearly a bunch of bullshit. God, have we really run out if interesting things to study? (Did I just call you God?)
As for success with men, I can only say that my taller counterparts do seem to have a harder time meeting men. And the taller men have an easier time with women. I think in some feral way, men feel intimated by taller women. Unless she’s a Victoria’s Secret model, in which case she comes across as fully female and more able to be.. er.. dominated. Women seem to prefer tall men because they make them feel safe and protected. Of course these are genearalizations and there are plenty of exceptions, since people really “hook up” because of chemistry. I’ve found that there is no real way to anticipate chemistry, and also no way to deny it.
The thing is, the study isn’t BS — or at least not totally so. The datasets they used are very sound and have been yielding fascinating sociological information for some years now.
I agree with you on the basketball team, certainly. And I agree that taller = smarter seems… suspect.
And on the tall men/short women, yes. I’m not sure if it’s men feeling intimidated, or feeling that the taller woman is less feminine or what. As you point out, the supermodel figures almost universally tend to be in the 5′8″-6′0″ range.
-wolfe
I suppose when I say the study is BS, I’m referring to the fact that it has no logical ground to stand on. I suspect studies, in general. I have to view them from the eyes of what I’ve observed in the world around me, realizing that I have not seen the whole world. I find it hard to believe you can conduct a legitimate study on the intelligence of taller versus shorter persons unless you minimize the categories. For instance, you could study the people of the midwest or an even smaller grouping. I doubt you could make a very clear conclusion on the state of an entire country, much less the entire human race. As you noted, these statistics just MIGHT hold true in the US and UK, but hard to imagine they could really be true in say, the far east or in South America.
It makes for some interesting reading on statistics, but it really can’t be interpreted and internalized in any real way.
The children in the study were aged 3. Have you ever heard of the 2×2 method for calculating a childs height? No doubt you have, I will explain anyway. On average, you can predict a childs future adult height by doubling the height they are at age 2. As the children in the study were 3, some of them would still have had to be taller than some of the other 3 year olds, and these ones would again be taller as adults. It is possible that those three years old were able to dominate adult attention more so than the others because they were bigger and physically stronger and able to scramble over the others to get to their target. The runts get left the scraps so to speak. This means it is not genetics, other than, an advantage from physical statue, and that it is in due to getting more of a share of the environmental stimulus pie.
Funny.
Yes, I have heard of the method. I calculated both of my boys’ height potential at age three. It turned out to be true in both cases. One is now six foot even and the other is six foot four. Both of them plenty intelligent, btw. (Of course my dad is barely 5′10″ and he’s a genius. Oh, and I’m 5′4″ ~ I dunno what I am. Never bothered to find out.)
Although I never could figure. Is it the same when they are just three as when they are three years and eleven months? It’s been too long ago for me to be able to gauge that correctly.
I am not afraid to admit that I have no clue how tall I am and I have never bothered to find out either. Whenever I have to give the measurement on a questionaire (rarely) I just pull a figure out of thin air. Though I have to admit, sometimes people look at me strangely after such surveys are handed in.
Re: toddlers height. Sorry I have no idea, I don’t even know whether it’s a bit of an urban myth but I think there might be some truth to it as plenty of 4 years old these days are so tall. As for teenagers….put it this way, my 15 year old brother is 6 foot 4.
@Female And I thought it was at 2.5 that you did it! But yes, anecdotally, that 2×2 method (as you call it) works very well. Worked for me, all siblings of either gender.
@Teri: on having to make the study smaller, rather than larger: actually, for mathematical reasons, that’s generally a bad idea. The data gets stronger the higher the numbers involved. That said, you do need to control for factors such as region, income, social class (in the UK), etc.
I tend to think such statistical studies should be taken with a grain of salt, yes. I think they are utterly useless for predicting an individual’s intelligence. Perhaps that is bothering you, since you mention your Dad’s height and yours.
Let’s say that we accept the premise ‘men are smarter than women, on average, by 5-6 IQ points’. Or, to be less insulting to the two of you, let’s accept the premise, for this argument only, that women are, on average, measurably inherently better at writing and communication than men.
Does that mean if we pick a man and a woman at random that she will be better at communicating than he will be? Of course not. (True, statistically, there might be a 50.04% chance she will be, but those aren’t great odds).
By the same token, if we take a 6′1″ man and compare him to a 5′7″ man, there might — if we are to believe this study — be a 50.04% chance the taller man is smarter, but again, those aren’t great odds.
To put it more mathematically, variations within population groups (e.g. gender, or people of a given height) are much bigger than variations between population groups.
In any case, I’m glad this has stimulated discussion. I agree, take these longtitudinal studies with a grain of salt, but I’m not quite as dismissive as you are Teri.
Best,
-wolfe
wolfe,
Yes, the data gets stronger, the greater the number of those studied. But if you use 20 people from 100 cities that have a population of over 10,000 ~ as opposed to 2,000 people from one city of 10,000 ~ you will obviously get a clearer picture of the true bent of that city. Whereas the other study would provide a statistic that is not quite as concise and MUCH more general. And since the variables will be much greater, the results could prove to be way off base. Which is why I feel a study has to have some very controlled data in order to be valid. I measure every bit of every ounce of information that comes my way in order to decide whether or not to keep it in my brain. This sort of study, although fun to discuss, is far too much chaff to hold on to for any length of time.
And this has nothing to do with how tall or short I am. I have one sister who is short, two who are tall. My father is average and my mother is tall. All of them are highly intelligent. And not one of us cares whether or not others believe so.
They studied every child born in the entire country during a given week (or two-week) period. So, yes, what you say is true, but I think they cover that (although they are hit by the ‘time of year’ correlation problem).
Now, you say “I measure every bit of every ounce of information that comes my way in order to decide whether or not to keep it in my brain. This sort of study, although fun to discuss, is far too much chaff to hold on to for any length of time.”
Ha! I concur 100%. Extremely well said.
No, this study is a little jest, something to chuckle over and ponder over then move on. It might be right, but I wouldn’t store it heavily, that’s for sure!
And yep, again, with the examples you give, variations within population groups (tall vs short) are much, much, much bigger than variations between population groups.
Just as it’s also possible for the average man to be ‘better’ than the average woman in, say, both strength and intelligence (I’m certain of the former, I strongly suspect the latter). Yet, given a random man and a random woman, the man might only have a 51% change of being ‘better’ than the woman at intelligence. If that.
No, I just blogged it because I found it an amusing and plausible, though bizarre result. I admit, a bit of cotton candy for the mind.
-wolfe
Well a mouthful of cotton candy is certainly fun every once in awhile. *wink*
And I hope I didn’t imply that I didn’t enjoy the pondering.
I dont think height has anything to do with intelligence, and even if it did, i find that there are many more people i know that are smart that are short rather than tall. Especially important historical figures.
My head is spinning. Wolfe - clarify for me. I am 5′3″ and a physicist. My ex-husband is 6′2″ and living on welfare. Will my children have blue eyes?
@Teri /chuckle.
@Megan hey, welcome to the blog. Hope you’ll post more. The problem is that’s anecdotal evidence. These longtitudinal studies have SOME scientific validity. Some. If it’s any consolation, I was bloody short pre-puberty, but still smart. I agree though, the whole thing is a bit ’silly season’ August style journalism with few stories.
@Zogmama Heh, zog. You know statistics as well as I do (and probably better). My specialty was in communications, but honestly, I found stats deathly dull. Seriously, it seems an interesting longitudinal study, and, somewhat disturbingly it suggests women are very slightly counter-selected for intelligence. Which makes no bloody sense to me.
In any event, you’re pretty smart (for someone who isn’t an engineer, of course! ).
As I said to Megan, above, it’s silly season journalism on a reasonable survey/paper. I actually DO think there’s some there there, but again…
Variation within a height group would overwhelm variation between height groups
In other words, if you take a million 5′3″ women, and a million 5′9″ women, it might well be that you’d get more talented physicists out of the 5′9″ ers. But only a few more.
Or even another way — lets stipulate men have a 5-6 point IQ advantage (unproven in my reading to date) over women. And let’s stipulate taller people tend to be smarter (also weak postulate) Take a 6′1″ man and a 5′3″ woman. Who’s brighter? Yeah, maybe stats say the man is 54% likely to be brighter, but those aren’t great odds.
In your case, I’ll go with the woman, zogmama.
Especially if she has to coach football.
Regards,
-wolfe
I don’t have to coach football, I just do. Seriously, I didn’t read all the statistics (or even all the posts) related. Too much a busman’s holiday for me. Hope I didn’t sound “embittered” re my ex, either. Using the word welfare is not my style - however, I think the first year (or three) you are “unemployed.” After that, the terminology changes.
And BTW, my sons have blue eyes and green eyes. They both play the line, and I have my own equipment so we can hit each other with impunity to practice. There’s only one truly effective way to instill respect for women in our young boys. That makes me suicidally curious about what drives Dick.
Forgive me my mucking around on the rest of the site.
~Z~
When the Wizard of Id told the King that the odds against a short man outliving a tall man were 5-1 he had the royal basket ball team report to the gallows.
Anyone notice how tall the kids are these days. I’m 6′1 and as a teenager was easily among the tallest in my school. I was at the local high school the other day and actually felt small. Quite disconcerting.
@gwallan: I recently went to a website that purported to accurately predict a child’s adult height by a series of calculations. The prediction is for them to top out at 6′1″ and 6′3″ - equal to and taller than their father.
Which leads me to ask where my genetic contribution to height ended up. Not that it’s a bad thing for boys to be tall, but when your shoe size exceeds your age (my elder son at 12), I think that perhaps I should have sprung for the organic milk with no rBGH when the public panicked several years ago.
~Z~
@Post 27 by Z, pfft, comment on the rest of the site as you wish (as long as within the rules which it manifestly overwhelmingly is. Redirects to Russian spam trojans, porn, no that wouldn’t be).
@Gwallan despite being a Christian, I never much liked Wizard of Id. Go figure.
@Z — genetic contribution to height? Seems to be minimal on the part of the woman. Odd, I know. Almost counter intuitive. What’s even more bizarre — I don’t get this at all — female genetic contribution to intelligence seems low… yet female environmental contribution to intelligence seems incredibly high.
This… makes… no… sense.
I guess it means be a good mother. But… shouldn’t men be more encouraged to look for intelligent women than dumb women?
And yet it seems at every turn in society and evolution the contrapositive is pushed. Go figure.
-wolfe
@wolfe
The blokes responsible for the Wiz also did the BC series which I prefer.
Genetic contribution to intelligence. We had a chat about this a while back in the forum. I maintain that early in our evolution womens’ choice of more intelligent mates was part of the reason for our climb as a successful species. Whether it can actually be considered “runaway sexual selection” is a different matter. I still don’t see any reason for nature to “treat” intelligence as a desirable quality(there a quite a few species which have thrived without it). God however would be a different matter. In fact in my mind it’s the best argument FOR the existence of God.
Very interesting argument gwallan. In ignoring the ‘God’ argument, I could argue we fit a niche of generalists — not very fast runners (but fast), not best tree climbers (but good), not very good swimmers (but can do it) — and that for a species trying to fill a generalist role you either need massive breeding (not possible given female shape, size, development of young, and limitations of human female pelvis) or intelligence. (Or something).
That’s a very hasty off the cuff devil’s advocate argument.
I lean, personally, to the view that it’s a decent argument for the existence of God; though hardly a scientific one, merely a rational one.
-wolfe
@wolfe
It’s probably more a hopeful argument than anything else. There are times when I do seek a rational for belief or to convince myself that my agnosticism is flawed. Unfortunately it’s always based on sentimentality rather than science.
To be honest I posted a hasty stream of consiousness which led me to that conclusion. I left it rather than try to expand it because it was new to me and I thought others may be able to help me expand the thinking.