Quote from: dz93 on January 06, 2024, 12:52:14 AMhttps://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf
QuoteWe show that sexual conflict at the level of preferences is translated into choice: women were most likely to choose a speed-dater 25 cm taller than themselves, whereas men were most likely to choose women only 7 cm shorter than themselves. As a consequence, matches were most likely at an intermediate height dif- ference (19 cm) that differed significantly from the preferred height difference of both sexes.
25 centimeters is a 10 inch difference.
So if you are 5 foot 9 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 4 foot 11?
And if you are 5 foot 11 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 5 foot 1?
Jesus that is ridiculous.
How I went from a Sub5 to a Chad (LLS has changed my life)
Quote from: TheDream on January 06, 2024, 10:41:55 AM25 centimeters is a 10 inch difference.
So if you are 5 foot 9 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 4 foot 11?
And if you are 5 foot 11 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 5 foot 1?
Jesus that is ridiculous.
Not sure I buy it tbh, that would mean that a 6'3 man would have the ideal height for women up 5'5, which definitely isn't the case based on what I see irl, virtually all women would see 6'3 as very solidly tall (the ideal male height imo). Even 6'1 is still seen as a good height by most women, it can't be "too short" for any woman above 5'3 when US female average is 5'4. What I get from that study is that 6'0-6'2 is the optimal range for women if the average male height is 5'10.5, with anything above 6'3 beginning to become too tall for a lot of women. Add 1 inch to that for taller countries and you get 6'1-6'3.
But either way I hope all these claims of insane heightism by women you see online are just black pill/incel exaggerations cause otherwise this stuff is getting out of control and won't be socially sustainable in a few years. Makes me question the morality of doing LL tbh, do I really want to put my wallet and body through hell just to please entitled women with insane expectations and no sense of reality and statistics? Like, why the fk do you need your partner to tower over you like like a giant? 10 inches is almost the difference between Shaquile O'Neal and the average man in a tall country, that is insane. It astounds me that 6'0 went from being seen as one of the best male heights to not even close to ideal in my lifetime.
Quote from: dz93 on January 06, 2024, 12:52:14 AMhttps://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf
https://iili.io/J72ZaxR.png
So based on the study and graph 180-190 cm is the good range if the average male height is 179 cm, making it 183-193 in tall countries. Did I get that right? But in order to scale the study's results to different countries shouldn't the average male height of the country where it was conducted (US I think) be used instead of the average height of the men in the study? The women that took part in it are used to the male height distribution they see in their daily lives, not the one the men in the study happened to have, and that's where their ideas of "ideal height" and "tallness" come from. Unless average male height in the US is also around 179 cm.
Quote from: Kintaeryos on January 06, 2024, 11:14:43 AMSo based on the study and graph 180-190 cm is the good range if the average male height is 179 cm, making it 183-193 in tall countries. Did I get that right?
Yeah, that's my thinking.
Quote from: Kintaeryos on January 06, 2024, 11:14:43 AMBut in order to scale the study's results to different countries shouldn't the average male height of the country where it was conducted (US I think) be used instead of the average height of the men in the study? The women that took part in it are used to the male height distribution they see in their daily lives, not the one the men in the study happened to have, and that's where their ideas of "ideal height" and "tallness" come from. Unless average male height in the US is also around 179 cm.
The sample sizes in the study are most likely large enough to be statistically representative of the populations where they were measured, so it should make little difference if it's the "daily population", or "just" the "study population". But the study breaks down the participants into race/ethnicity, with caucasians being the majority in it, so that should be taken into consideration. Population/health statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf) show an average height of 178 cm for non-Hispanic white males aged 20-40 in the US (Table 11), which means this speed dating study's average of 179cm is decently spot on at least for that segment of the population. The age average of participants was also within this range. For a country like the US I think you need to shift this study's figures according to your state or area's average height, because using the country's average as a whole can become too broad (like it would be to simply average all EU countries together for instance).
So of course the actual, practical, real-life average will depend on where you live, since the US is such a diverse country it's hard to generalize across all of it, the average heights will depend on which state and even neighborhood you live in. So if you know your area (let's say for instance California or Florida) has a lower population-wide average of for instance 176cm for men because of more ethnic diversity, you just shift the figures like I described for Nordic countries earlier, but in the opposite direction instead. Same way it doesn't make sense to use Germany's averages if you live in Portugal, but people's speed dating height preferences could probably still relatively speaking be the same.
Just as a disclaimer I'm not a statistician by any means (pun intended), but I can say it's much easier to confidently do this numbers shift for the Nordic countries since they are way less diverse than the US and thus are more in line with the sample population from this study.
The average-relative way I interpret that graph and the numbers in the study is:
Average male height or taller = Neutral to positive effect and not _that_ much difference per cm of increase.
Up to 10 cm shorter than average male height = Slightly more competition with every cm, tilting up towards doubling/tripling it at the lower end though, since we're getting closer to the average female height.
More than 10 cm shorter than the average male height = Competition increasing much more dramatically with every cm.
Basically, when someone's shorter than at least 90% of men (the 10th percentile and below) is where it is much more difficult.
One of the studies I have read is very nicely laid out in this video. There are also links in the description of the video, and I'll also link it here:
Video:
Study:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf
I have plotted the data that represents height and acceptance from the study.
Height cm Height feet Acceptance rate %
142,24 4'8 5
144,78 4'9 5,5
147,32 4'10 6
149,86 4'11 6,5
152,4 5'0 7
154,94 5'1 7,5
157,48 5'2 8
160,02 5'3 9
162,56 5'4 10
165,1 5'5 15 - OLD HEIGHT
167,64 5'6 25
170,18 5'7 35
172,72 5'8 52
175,26 5'9 67
177,8 5'10 87 - NEW HEIGHT
180,34 5'11 94
182,88 6'0 98
185,42 6'1 93
187,96 6'2 94
190,5 6'3 78
193,04 6'4 68
195,58 6'5 55
198,12 6'6 42
200,66 6'7 35
203,2 6'8 34
According to this study I should have experienced a 6 fold in attraction, but in reality the increase is much bigger. What that tells me is one of two things, or maybe both. The study is very generalised and is based on what women say, and not what they do. May studies have shown that women will virtue signal when asked about preferences, much more so than men. I think that the numbers from around 172cm and upwards are probably decently accurate, while the rejection rate below what is probably much higher. Either one of these is true, or both. I am guessing both. There might also be a multiplication factor for above average looking men, where below a certain height (a hard threshold) they are as invisible as average or even below average looking men. I mean there is probably are difference because of looks, but in relation to men at average height this difference is probably negligible. Where as above that threshold, good looking men will have unlocked their potential.
Let me expand. Let's say based on the chat above acceptance rate for men at around 165cm actually is 5% and not 15% as the study says. And let's say that good looking men will have an acceptance rate twice that of average looking men. In the grand scheme of things, that difference between average and good looking men at 165cm isn't that great because the pool of women is already very small.
Quote from: Stand taller on January 06, 2024, 04:11:31 PM
According to this study I should have experienced a 6 fold in attraction, but in reality the increase is much bigger. What that tells me is one of two things, or maybe both. The study is very generalised and is based on what women say, and not what they do. May studies have shown that women will virtue signal when asked about preferences, much more so than men.
I don’t think the study is saying you should become more attractive. It is simply saying you have a larger dating pool.
That means if height is a filter in dating 6 times more women would now actually consider you as a mate by looking at your qualities while before they wouldn’t even consider you but just instantly reject you.
Quote from: TheDream on January 06, 2024, 05:30:43 PMI don’t think the study is saying you should become more attractive. It is simply saying you have a larger dating pool.
That means if height is a filter in dating 6 times more women would now actually consider you as a mate by looking at your qualities while before they wouldn’t even consider you but just instantly reject you.
I mean those two things are of the same aren't they? Your dating pool becomes bigger because you before more attractive to more women, same same.
Quote from: Stand taller on January 06, 2024, 06:14:23 PMI mean those two things are of the same aren't they? Your dating pool becomes bigger because you before more attractive to more women, same same.
Not exactly. When you go from an acceptance rate of 15% to an acceptance rate of 87% it does not mean your attraction level has increased from 0.15 to 0.87. That is, acceptance rate does not equal attraction.
Basically it means you wouldn’t get outright rejected immediately due to your height, thus the females would expend the time and energy to actually look at your different qualities and decide if they like you or not. These qualities which they evaluate is your attraction.
Imagine an algorithm:
If Male.height >= Female.height_threshold:
Female.evaluate_attraction(Male)
Else:
Female.discard(Male)
Now obviously the more time a male and female interact the more complex attraction becomes, and this does not hold. But for rapid dating like speed dating, night clubs or dating apps I feel this is an accurate approximation.
This is why I think height is becoming more and more fierce in modern dating, because young people do not spend time together in social groups in the mall etc. where natural attraction between a boy and a girl can arise across a wide spectrum of heights.
Modern dating is more fast paced with apps, speed dating, social media etc. so it converges towards this simplified model where height becomes a sort of filter criteria.
Now you can argue height itself is also a parameter in the attraction qualities themselves. But what they are quantifying in the study with acceptance rate is not attraction itself but simply how many women would evaluate your attraction at that specific height.
Quote from: TheDream on January 06, 2024, 06:59:36 PMNot exactly. When you go from an acceptance rate of 15% to an acceptance rate of 87% it does not mean your attraction level has increased from 0.15 to 0.87. That is, acceptance rate does not equal attraction.
Basically it means you wouldn’t get outright rejected immediately due to your height, thus the females would expend the time and energy to actually look at your different qualities and decide if they like you or not. These qualities which they evaluate is your attraction.
Imagine an algorithm:
If Male.height >= Female.height_threshold:
Female.evaluate_attraction(Male)
Else:
Female.discard(Male)
Now obviously the more time a male and female interact the more complex attraction becomes, and this does not hold. But for rapid dating like speed dating, night clubs or dating apps I feel this is an accurate approximation.
This is why I think height is becoming more and more fierce in modern dating, because young people do not spend time together in social groups in the mall etc. where natural attraction between a boy and a girl can arise across a wide spectrum of heights.
Modern dating is more fast paced with apps, speed dating, social media etc. so it converges towards this simplified model where height becomes a sort of filter criteria.
Now you can argue height itself is also a parameter in the attraction qualities themselves. But what they are quantifying in the study with acceptance rate is not attraction itself but simply how many women would evaluate your attraction at that specific height.
I don’t think it’s any different from a school application. Most top schools require a minimum 3.0 gpa, so if you are under this your application is immediately discarded and not even looked at. What the >3.0 GPA does is gives you the opportunity to have your application evaluated in more depth, but by no means is it a guarantee of admission.
In a similar light, as your algorithm shows if you are under the height threshold you are immediately rejected. But once you pass that minimum height requirement she’ll now take more time to evaluate you holistically. Because height is so quantitative it’s an easy filtering mechanism for women, and tends to be the first thing that’s evaluated to “weed out” the shorter men.
Quote from: Stand taller on January 06, 2024, 04:11:31 PMOne of the studies I have read is very nicely laid out in this video. There are also links in the description of the video, and I'll also link it here:
Video:
Study:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf
I have plotted the data that represents height and acceptance from the study.
Height cm Height feet Acceptance rate %
142,24 4'8 5
144,78 4'9 5,5
147,32 4'10 6
149,86 4'11 6,5
152,4 5'0 7
154,94 5'1 7,5
157,48 5'2 8
160,02 5'3 9
162,56 5'4 10
165,1 5'5 15 - OLD HEIGHT
167,64 5'6 25
170,18 5'7 35
172,72 5'8 52
175,26 5'9 67
177,8 5'10 87 - NEW HEIGHT
180,34 5'11 94
182,88 6'0 98
185,42 6'1 93
187,96 6'2 94
190,5 6'3 78
193,04 6'4 68
195,58 6'5 55
198,12 6'6 42
200,66 6'7 35
203,2 6'8 34
According to this study I should have experienced a 6 fold in attraction, but in reality the increase is much bigger. What that tells me is one of two things, or maybe both. The study is very generalised and is based on what women say, and not what they do. May studies have shown that women will virtue signal when asked about preferences, much more so than men. I think that the numbers from around 172cm and upwards are probably decently accurate, while the rejection rate below what is probably much higher. Either one of these is true, or both. I am guessing both. There might also be a multiplication factor for above average looking men, where below a certain height (a hard threshold) they are as invisible as average or even below average looking men. I mean there is probably are difference because of looks, but in relation to men at average height this difference is probably negligible. Where as above that threshold, good looking men will have unlocked their potential.
Let me expand. Let's say based on the chat above acceptance rate for men at around 165cm actually is 5% and not 15% as the study says. And let's say that good looking men will have an acceptance rate twice that of average looking men. In the grand scheme of things, that difference between average and good looking men at 165cm isn't that great because the pool of women is already very small.
I looked at the table at the end of the study, are you sure your summary table is correct? Some numbers are different and some heights are missing, either from yours or the one on the pdf.
You must be logged in to post a reply.