ideal hght

Edit Post

Quote from: ForcedPuberty on February 20, 2015, 07:25:12 AM
ok I don't even know where to start with this 1.

for starters the average is 63.5 inches with a standard deviation of 2.5 inches which brings the 2nd standard deviation to 68.5inches. 173.99cm for the 95 percentile and under.  this makes the 95% percentile 5"8.5 not 5"11. im fairly sure my maths is correct. if im wrong please show me. but as it stands if this is correct then you have manipulated the data.

http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/sd.htm

second 85% of women are less than 66 inches, this is 5"5, the method of manipulation you are employing is to use a larger standard deviation size, for example if there was 1 women in the world who was 10 foot tall it would be accurate to say that 100 percent of all women who don't have disease are between 4"11 (for arguments sake) and 10 foot. while a true statement it is a manipulation to skew the statistics by including such a tini minority of women to drag up the averages for the bulk of the data. to focus on a valid conclusion you can not include the total poluation as height and preference is largly a probability orientated desire.


I can not criticize any of your other points because they are based on emotions with zero logic and just because you have a feeling. in short they are assertions based on no logic with no actual reason. your just making statements with no backing, trying to adhere to colloquial accepted non truths for your validation.

for example. everyone lies about their height so now it has lost all meaning and now all heights that don't agree with my assertion are invalid.

you cant just say things are invalid because you want them to be invalid.

do u think women use logic when attracted or emotions?

Edit Post

They use both, but they are vastly very logical when choosing a long-term partner or husband.

Edit Post

They use both, but they are vastly very logical when choosing a long-term partner or husband.

Edit Post

Quote from: tallerbetter on February 20, 2015, 05:58:42 PM...they are vastly very logical when choosing a long-term partner or husband.

That's not always true. There are a bunch of women who marry a deadbeat knowing beforehand that he's a total deadbeat, but they do it anyway because they're attracted to him and then wonder why he's still the same loser after marriage. A bunch of single mothers all over the internet for this reason.

Edit Post

Quotedo u think women use logic when attracted or emotions?

its difficult to answer a bated question when you don't know the context.

logic and emotions are not mutually exclusive.

and finally different girls use different methods to judge and decide on men.

if you want my true answer. for the definition of attracted, they only are attracted on the genetic level, both logic and emotions are conscious representations of brain function to allow a biological organism to judge the unconscious traits.

-----------------------

I guess the trick to this question is understanding that women and men have different brain structures, women have a link between their thought processing center and their emotional center, where as men don't have this link between the 2 brain hemispheres.

so this means that even if a woman uses logic it runs passed the thought processing (logic)center to the emotional center to different degrees depending on the neuronal networking of the individual. but regardless of how linked it is or is not, the link is still present. (this neuronal networking "strength" "efficiency" is the reason behind why or why not some women are more or less emotionally driven than others)

and so the woman can either use the emotional center to make a decision, or she can use her thought processing logic center which will run through the emotional center anyway.

either way she will be emotionally subjective. it just depends on the degree.

---------------------------------

Edit Post

FP (and anyone who has thoughts):
Quote from: ForcedPuberty on February 20, 2015, 02:06:17 PMI think it is important to get femur done if you get tibia done.

I believe in keeping the biomechanics as close to normal as possible.

I believe 6cm on tibia + 5cm on femur is perfect. both are within safe limits and the overall increase in leg length is desirable for a lot of people.

I believe you are doing 8cm on tibia to negate needing to do femur. while I can understand your reasoning I think its better to get a little less on tibia and balance the biomechanics with a surgery for femur. overall you will have less soft tissue stress per leg segment, more length overall, and better biomechanics.

So you think that
1. 0.8 is best femur-tibia ratio. so, if your tibia are longer, it would be less biomechanically efficient? But what about basketball players who tend to have a higher ratio, like maybe 0.9 or 0.95? theres an article written by a professor who says that shorter femurs enable greater vertical jump due to the physics involved.... but I can see how tibia that are longer than normal is a disadvantage. you will have shorter steps/stride (eg stepping low and long past a defender, making hip contact) compared to someone with same length femur and shorter tibia... just wanna know how this can challenge the conventional understanding.. perhaps 0.9 is the best ratio for short term sports performance but will have long term effects due to compensatory mechanisms being activated? I mean after all our body eventually compensates with other muscle/tendon groups
2. athletic recovery is better (return to full athetlic abilities) for maybe 3 cm femur and 6 cm tibia?? vs, 8 cm tibia?
 3.what about total recovery time to contact sports? 3 cm femur, 6 cm tibia VERSUS 8 cm tibia?

Edit Post

Quote from: tallerbetter on February 20, 2015, 05:21:10 PMI don't understand this thread with so many off topic posts and many deleted posts.

Too many people are trying to get into a conversation so it's all messed up and I too wonder about the deleted posts.