• context [fae/faer, fae/faer]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    i wonder about confounding variables like childhood nutrition. in a study like this height may actually be a proxy for socioeconomic status.

    edit: and if i’d bothered to read the article i’d have noticed it said exactly that:

    Instead, the authors favor an “early environment” explanation, such that people who grow up in healthy, constructive environments become taller, smarter, and more successful than those who grow up in impoverished, destructive environments.

    • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Someone here posted a study of contemporary stats of colonized countries in Asia (particularly India, I believe). It found that the stagnation and even decrease in height correlated with colonization and imperialism since much of the nutritional resources were being redirected elsewhere. The stereotype of Asians being short is largely the cause of crackers in many Asian countries

  • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    9 months ago

    Median income in US: $74580

    Median height in US: 175cm (5’9")

    Jeff Bezos’s income in 2023: $70 billion

    Jeff Bezos’s estimated height: 530cm (17’4")

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I mean… he is a Dragon on his lair full of gold, so that height makes sense.

    • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      At a 100,000,000% salary increase, I make Bezos to be about thirty million inches taller.

      This would suggest his space flight didn’t even reach his own knees.

        • ProfessorAdonisCnut [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s how it’s phrased, but with their numbers quoted the 6’4" guy gets $107,919 vs a linear scaling giving $103,740. The latter rounds to the $104,000 stated, so I’m assuming that’s the intended reading

    • JoeByeThen [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      Don’t forget that constant little twinge in the back when you’re older from a lifetime of slight bending because tabletops, sinks, and other everyday designs are all just a few inches out of reach.

  • atturaya
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 months ago

    people take taller people more seriously, associate them with leadership when maybe it’s not warranted. it’s not an accident that the vast majority of CEOs and practically every president is >6’ and so many lie about their height or wear lifts or whatever.

  • Comradesexual
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    I am 5’6’’ (168cm). Now I know why I cannot find a job.

  • Babs [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    Jokes and incel catastrophizing aside, lookism is indeed a thing with material consequences in society. People just like conventionally-attractive people more and that leads to preferential treatment.

  • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    Importantly, this estimation assumes other factors associated with earning potential — for instance, gender, age, years of schooling, and location — are held equal.

    See, the gender/pay gap is a myth! It’s a height/pay gap!

    Academia is a fucking joke

      • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        What does it mean that the other factors are held equal? If difference is negated doesn’t that skew the results? I guess I don’t understand the study

        • Babs [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          You want to study the effect of a certain trait on a group. So you take two groups and try to make them as even as possible, aside from the trait you are testing. Ideally you’d match every guy in your sample with someone who is mostly identical in upbringing, location, etc, but taller. That’s how you make sure it’s actually height causing the effect and not something else. If you don’t account for this, you might end up with a bunch of bourgeois short kings getting compared to 6 foot tall poor people, and might even come the conclusion that height has a negative correlation with wealth.

          It’s not saying “height matters, not those other things.” But rather “height is one of those things that effect socioeconomic status, statistically.”

          • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I don’t get how making sexual difference equal does anything other than make sexual difference disappear. When half the population is shorter because of sexual difference, and also paid less due to structural discrimination on the basis of gender/sex, making those differences equal makes the actual causes disappear. I just don’t get it. I have no background in labs or experimentation so sorry if I’m being dense.

            Marx flattens some differences in order to illustrate class distinctions and disappear certain confusing elements before working them in later, but he explains why and how, and what effect this will have.

            But how would you do this with sex, when the thing you are measuring, height and pay, are both directly related, either physiologically or socially? I couldn’t find the link to the study or more info, and the fact this is in Forbes makes my hitler particles detector register a beep

            • LeninWeave [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The purpose is to measure the effect of a single variable, so you make sure to correct for all other variables. For example, to measure the effect of height you might compare white men only against white men, black women only against black women, etc.

              In a study measuring the gender pay gap, they would be correcting for variables other than gender.

              • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Is that what “this estimation assumes other factors associated with earning potential — for instance, gender, age, years of schooling, and location — are held equal,” means? Cuz that’s not what it sounds like. Assuming things are equal isn’t this statistical matching thing you are talking about

                Edit: I found the study so I’m trying to figure out how these other factors are controlled for.