80sU2isBest
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2000
- Messages
- 4,970
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Yoda
Exactly. And Kermit's not dumb for a frog.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Yoda
U2democrat said:I'm 5'2" and get teased about my size a lot, sometimes it bugs me sometimes it doesn't, depends on the context.
Actually now when I think about it it gets on my nerves when people associate being short with being weak. I hate it when people think I'm weak, because I know I'm not.
80sU2isBest said:
I have never noticed this correlation in real life. I've always been short. I am now a 5 ft. 4 in. 39 year old male and last time I checked my IQ, it was 126, and I never was a dummy. I know several short people that are intelligent.
Shaliz said:
I'd have to say weight is a bigger factor, in my experience.
yolland said:I'm still not sure the analogy of height to "physical attractiveness" really works--at least not if we're to accept the conviction of some people in the article, as well as some posters in this thread, that stereotypes about height--for men, anyhow--entail notions of capability and competence...qualities that are needed for career success, not just relationship success. I've been trying to think of something in the long litany of physical-appearance expectations commonly leveled at women that analogizes well to this, and I'm not sure I can think of one, at least not one that would apply to a broad array of fields. Obviously, height isn't equally relevant to all jobs a man might do either--I'm inclined to say it matters little in academia, for example--but I think in quite a few fields it is the case that men who are taller get an automatic leg-up on perceived competence, authority, "potency," whatever you want to call it. And like Ellay said, if it's a question of how other people--like, for example, your boss or your clients--are going to perceive your competence (as opposed to how physically attractive you are), then you can do all the self-esteem exercises, "projecting confidence" drills, etc. you want, but it's not likely to make much difference, because sadly the solution lies in changing their minds, not in adapting yours ("Ah well, so what if some people are narrow and petty, I don't need their approval anyhow"). I guess perhaps the closest analogy to women's challenges here would be the idea that women, period, can't convey authority and competence as well as a man--but that's discrimination of an altogether different magnitude; height isn't covered by civil rights laws for a reason.
I think it problematizes the stereotype--I wouldn't say though that it "turns it on its head," especially considering that a relationship preference for taller men is not a priori detrimental to professional success; that particular consequence follows from nonsexual biases apparently held by both genders. The fact that weight can be readily enough changed (though many physical expectations encoded by ideals of female beauty cannot--leg length, breast size, bone structure of both face and body, etc.) is irrelevant to the acceptability of socioculturally or otherwise penalizing women for "failing" to live up to said ideals. But yes, so far as it goes, it's stupid and unfair to rule out potential romantic interests on the basis of height.Maoilbheannacht said:This would seem to turn the stereotype that men are the more physically judmental sex on its head.
Hey, hold still for a sec while 5'9", dairy-challenged little me fumbles dumbly around in my shepherd's bag for my slingshot, will you?A_Wanderer said:I am 6'3" and I think that height is advantageous. On larger studies height has been been shown to have a positive correlation with intelligence.
I *think* you're more or less confirming my thinking here, but let me try paraphrasing you to be sure, because I'm not fully following your wording. You seem to be suggesting that while within a given population it makes sense that advantageous preferences for both height and intelligence might lead over time to a statistical correlation between the two, nonetheless one must take which population you're talking about into account--e.g., a rather tall Dutchman is not necessarily more likely to have a high IQ than a rather tall Greek, since the height comparisons implied by "rather" (unlike, presumably, the IQ comparisons) are relative to genetic particulars more or less unique to each group, even though growth-hormone-level influence probably(?) functions in a proportionally constant manner across both groups. Is that correct? (ethnically impure fingers crossed)A_Wanderer said:then could we have a positive selection for both height and intelligence but to a degree from who is having kids with who?
A correlation need not be a causation.
najeena said:I've heard ads on the radio for pills to make kids taller. The winner here? The people who sell the products. The losers are those who spend their money and hope for something magic to happen. These parents would do better to help their kids learn to see themselves as individuals with great potential, rather than someone who is missing something. Confidence and ease with who they are can overcome any percieved shortcoming. Shame on the parents who make their kids feel less than normal because of how they think they should look.
MrsSpringsteen said:Some parents are also trying to put their kids on Ritalin and Adderall in order to improve their kids' grades, when the kids don't have ADHD
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14590058/
"Parents want their kids to excel in school, and they've heard about the illegal use of stimulants such as Ritalin and Adderall for "academic doping." Hoping to obtain the drugs legally, they pressure pediatricians for them. Some even request the drugs after openly admitting they don't believe their child has ADHD.
Yet some parents will do whatever it takes to keep opportunities from slipping through a child's fingers — even outright lying to doctors to get the drugs, says Rater....
And some pill-eager parents aren't just seeking to level the playing field, they're trying to make their kids superstars, says Dr. Martin Stein, a professor of clinical pediatrics at University of California, San Diego.
“I see patients who come from privileged backgrounds and lower-level economic backgrounds and there’s a tremendous difference in parental expectations,” Stein says.
Privileged kids tend to have parents who will push them to be the academic cream of the crop and when they aren’t, they’ll start looking for reasons why, he says. “I tell them that honor roll, a merit scholarship or acceptance in an Ivy League school is not the end point. That would be poor medicine.”