Parents Treating Shortness In Their Kids As A Disease

[80sU2isBest]

Yoda

Exactly. And Kermit's not dumb for a frog.

 

[deep]

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.

your not too short

your too young

 

[Shaliz]

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.

I've never noticed any correlation between height and intelligence either. When I was in school, I was constantly competing at the top of my class with a boy who was no taller than I am (I finally topped out at 5'4''). I have yet to feel truly discrimanated against in any way because of my height. I'd have to say weight is a bigger factor, in my experience.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd have to say weight is a bigger factor, in my experience.

I agree.

 

[phillyfan26]

The only time I felt discriminated against was by a basketball coach in eighth grade. It was supposed to be a 5-day tryout and he cut all people under 5-2 on the first day (I was 4-10 at the time).

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

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.

Its interesting that women generally always prefer a man that is taller than they are regardless of how tall the women is. Men are always seen as shallow in their judgements of womens appearence, but there is nothing comparable in those judgements to the near universal appeal for a taller man among all women, which is a prime characteristic that most people cannot change. On the other hand, weight, hair, and other things can often be changed or enhanced rather easily compared to height which for most people is something that cannot be changed or enhanced in anyway. This would seem to turn the stereotype that men are the more physically judmental sex on its head.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[yolland]

This would seem to turn the stereotype that men are the more physically judmental sex on its head.

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.

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.

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?

Seriously...since you know way more about genetics than I do...could you perhaps explain how the genetic basis for height on the one hand, and the levels of growth hormone on the other, relate to IQ according to these studies? Because I'm inclined to assume that level of growth hormone and what's encoded in one's genes are two quite distinct things, and that therefore height per se is not a very reliable index of intelligence--e.g., all the supplemental growth hormone in the world wouldn't give you an IQ of 165 if you come from a long line of IQ-of-100-ish folks, regardless of what their heights were, any more than it would make you 6'3" if you come from a long line of 4'11"ers, regardless of their IQs. But I really know next to nothing about the potential range of interactions between the three. Also, what other factors besides milk-drinking might affect IGF levels?

Even if there were an impeccably established link between supplemental growth hormone and increased IQ, it seems highly questionable to me to thus advocate dosing kids up with it in hopes of raising their intelligence, in the absence of clear knowledge about what the other longterm consequences might be.

anitram, if you're reading this, I'd be interested in hearing your perspective too.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I disown any knowledge of genetics, I read an article in new scientist

But I will put this one to you, intelligence and height are products of our genes, they are to a degree heritable traits (They are also heavily influenced by environment). If we take this then we look at human interaction could we find that there is sexual selection for height (not too short and not too tall). If there is also a reproductive advantage in intelligence (not least the better chance at success) 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.

 

[yolland]

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.

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]

I'll say yes. although with a stipulation against the ethnically "impure" label since variation and heterogeneity is great. As an aside one can look at the possibility of positive intelligence selection among Ashkenazi Jews over the last few centuries to account for a higher mean group IQ relative to the mean population one.

Quantifying intelligence can be very fickle (just look at the Flynn effect) but it deserves consideration.

On the morality of giving children growth hormones to make them taller I am not entirely opposed if the medical risk is not great.

I think that I would be much more supportive of having designer babies so such courses of treatment are not required.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.”

 

[najeena]

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.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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.

Amen to every word of that!

 

[80sU2isBest]

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.”

The nicest thing I can say about such parents is that they don't deserve to be parents. A more harsh thing I can say is that they need to be beaten until their sense returns.