Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Android]

Abstract
Taller workers earn on average higher salaries. Recent research has proposed cognitive abilities and social skills as explanations for the height-wage premium. Another possible mechanism, employer discrimination, has found little support. In this paper, we provide some evidence in favor of the discrimination hypothesis. Using a cross section of 13 countries, we show that there is a consistent height-wage premium across Europe and that it is largely due to occupational sorting. We show that height has a significant effect for the occupational sorting of employed workers but not for the self-employed. We interpret this result as evidence of employer discrimination in favor of taller workers. Our results are consistent with the theoretical predictions of recent models on statistical discrimination and employer learning.

Source
Direct link to paper (PDF)

[myloginacct]

Recent research has proposed cognitive abilities and social skills as explanations for the height-wage premium. Another possible mechanism, employer discrimination, has found little support. In this paper, we provide some evidence in favor of the discrimination hypothesis.

I find this hypothesis far more agreeable than the bs cognitive abilities one, specially since that hypothesis gets promoted to multicultural countries like the US and Canada. It'd only make sense in countries where height was actively selected for, over a long period of time. In those societies, taller height would then be equated with "better" genes, which could include better cognitive capabilities, in general. When this mentality gets exported to countries outside of Northern Europe, however, then I have a problem with it, since it won't match reality. There's no reason to believe the average 5'11 John Dullhead is more likely to be intelligent than a 5'7 Indian immigrant in the Bay Area.

We show that height has a significant effect for the occupational sorting of employed workers but not for the self-employed.

In other words, employers care and pick employees based on their looks, since it helps. Factor that out of the equation, and then height suddenly stops being important. It makes much more sense.

[Android]

Yes, it's probably not a coincidence that American CEOs and Presidents are on average over 6 feet tall; we choose them due to preference. With phrases like "we look up to/look down on," it's no wonder that we prefer taller than not. After all, we're interested in CLL because we want that treatment ourselves. It's not just preference, it has clear advantages.

If two candidates were the same height and had similar personalities, we'd probably pick the aesthetically better one. It's just that height is hard to change unlike weight, mannerisms, education, or even less expensive and/or invasive surgeries (braces, nose job, hair transplant, etc.). This of course extends to personal relationships like dating in partner selection.

The thought process really is quite natural, it's in our best interest to go for the better overall package. The problem is that choosing based on what boils down to looks is discriminatory, and something that needs more awareness.

But what's next, would height become a protected trait? Would managers get additional training material to look out for height discrimination in the workplace? It'd probably be strange at first, but I think it'd be worth it if it means that we consciously avoid bias in a professional setting.

[myloginacct]

But what's next, would height become a protected trait? Would managers get additional training material to look out for height discrimination in the workplace? It'd probably be strange at first, but I think it'd be worth it if it means that we consciously avoid bias in a professional setting.

It could be becoming needed even, specially for men in really low ranges (160cm and under). Their lives are already difficult enough.

Nature is harsh. Our preferences are not evil in nature, but they may manifest themselves that way. "Bad" traits tend to get weeded out slowly. However, those could be anything from short height in men to "ugly" facial aesthetics in both genders. And an unfruitful, lived human life is needed for that effect.

However, more and more we transition into societies where that selection based on looks has become unimportant, and that irrelevance will only keep increasing in the future. That's why I agree laws, or at the very least instructions like those, wouldn't be silly (if jobs don't ever end up running out, anyway). Silly would be helping to make life even harder for intelligent, but short height people.

[CaptainAmerica]

How are you in your 30s and barely figuring all this out? I noticed this when I was like 13 years old. All the business men in suits I would see walking around in my city were much taller than everyone else around them, typical old money WASPS averaging 6ft1.

Sorry, I just can’t believe of all the things to talk about.. this CEO and wage gap statistic again and again and again. Yes, everyone in society likes tall, larger people much better. They are seen as symbols of authority and leadership. Short people are seen as jokes aka Danny Devitos.

[Android]

Anecdotal evidence is not enough to create change. I'm sharing studies that confirm our intuition in hopes to stir discussion, not insults.

[myloginacct]

How are you in your 30s and barely figuring all this out? I noticed this when I was like 13 years old. All the business men in suits I would see walking around in my city were much taller than everyone else around them, typical old money WASPS averaging 6ft1.

Sorry, I just can’t believe of all the things to talk about.. this CEO and wage gap statistic again and again and again. Yes, everyone in society likes tall, larger people much better. They are seen as symbols of authority and leadership. Short people are seen as jokes aka Danny Devitos.

Not every society is the US/Sweden/the Netherlands, though.

These kind of stories and studies of how taller people are more successful are never ever picked by any non-obscure media in my country.

[myloginacct]

Anecdotal evidence is not enough to create change. I'm sharing studies that confirm our intuition in hopes to stir discussion, not insults.

By the way, Android, don't you think our reading of all these reports on heightism can't also come back to influence us? You know what they say: stare long enough into the abyss, and the abyss stares back at you. What most people do is attributing some problems to their height, when in reality it wasn't related to their height. However, I feel like these could help one become a heightist. You know how a lot of short women only marry taller men? If height is such a drawback in society, it becomes increasingly harder in my mind to justify marrying a shorter woman. Which I'm sure is what many women think of short men, even the very good short men.

At what point do you take a step back?

[extremis]

It could be becoming needed even, specially for men in really low ranges (160cm and under). Their lives are already difficult enough.

Laws don't change people's minds. "Social justice" campaigns are not the "solution" to heightism. Height increase surgeries and procedures are.

Laws discouraging and punishing "racism", especially against blacks, have been in effect for decades now. Here's how effective those have been:


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/0...55114.full

Quote:
PNAS 2017; published ahead of print September 12, 2017[/u], https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114

ABSTRACT


This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

https://theblog.okcupid.com/how-your-rac...c68771b99e

https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-att...7dcbb4f060



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/

Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19; 113(16): 4296–4301.

Extant research has shown that, relative to white patients, black patients are less likely to be given pain medications and, if given pain medications, they receive lower quantities . For example, in a retrospective study, Todd et al. (10) found that black patients were significantly less likely than white patients to receive analgesics for extremity fractures in the emergency room (57% vs. 74%), despite having similar self-reports of pain. This disparity in pain treatment is true even among young children. For instance, a study of nearly one million children diagnosed with appendicitis revealed that, relative to white patients, black patients were less likely to receive any pain medication for moderate pain and were less likely to receive opioids—the appropriate treatment—for severe pain (6).

In other words, 200 years after the end of slavery, and almost 100 since the end of Jim Crow laws and the institution of such "social justice" policies as affirmative action, desegregation, etc, people are still as racist as ever. The only thing "social justice campaigns" has changed is that it's made it politically incorrect to be an outspoken racist. Even then, there are plenty of racially-oriented tribalist groups like Black Lives Matter and the Alt-Right/White Nationalists that are gaining massive amounts of traction.

In sum, both studies and cursory observations of real-life phenomena show that people are still as racist as ever on the inside. Know why? It's because laws don't change people. It doesn't change what they believe, what they feel, what they desire. It only inhibits them from pursuing or expressing those things in public for fear of legal repercussions.

Nature is harsh. Our preferences are not evil in nature, but they may manifest themselves that way. "Bad" traits tend to get weeded out slowly. However, those could be anything from short height in men to "ugly" facial aesthetics in both genders. And an unfruitful, lived human life is needed for that effect.

Arguments from subjective morality are petulant and self-righteous. Let's not get into that. "Good" and "evil" without a VALID foundation (i.e. not your own beliefs or social consensus) are just labels with no meaning or value whatsoever.

Don't know what you mean by the last part of your post. If you're suggesting that "bad" (i.e. unattractive, physically undesirable) traits are bred out because of "personality" traits again, then you're simply wrong. They get bred out because they're physically undesirable. Height is a sxxually dimorphic feature. Humans are a sxxually dimorphic species.

However, more and more we transition into societies where that selection based on looks has become unimportant, and that irrelevance will only keep increasing in the future. That's why I agree laws, or at the very least instructions like those, wouldn't be silly (if jobs don't ever end up running out, anyway). Silly would be helping to make life even harder for intelligent, but short height people.

?







Just when I think I've managed to get through to you a bit...

The above are 3 Google Trends searches for phrases related to looks (particularly, to improving your looks). Does it look like looks have been getting "less relevant" over the past few years?

Get real. Lookism and heightism are at all-time highs in 2018, and it's only going to get worse as time goes on, not better. Why would it get better? What's your reasoning for making this absurd claim?

Seriously, are you kidding me? Human society has NEVER been more fixated on physical appearance than it is today. Take a look at the studies above to see proof - and that's just for race. The short statured male community is sparsely populated because of how rare short stature is, but the androgenic alopecia (a much more common ailment for men) has never been more popular than it is today; research into a cure for it would not be so abundant if looks were "irrelevant" in today's society.

Heightism isn't going to "end". This ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky fantasy needs to end. It isn't going to happen. The solution to height discrimination isn't more "social justice" garbage. It's safe, affordable, accessible procedures for height increase that don't carry the same risks and drawbacks (destruction of athletic ability, long convalescence period requiring time off work, etc).

By the way, Android, don't you think our reading of all these reports on heightism can't also come back to influence us? You know what they say: stare long enough into the abyss, and the abyss stares back at you.

"They" don't say this. Friedrich Nietzsche did. And you're misinterpreting the quote.

What most people do is attributing some problems to their height, when in reality it wasn't related to their height.

[citation needed]

Seriously, do you know "most people" on earth, or even "most people" who are short? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your own opinion?

However, I feel like these could help one become a heightist. You know how a lot of short women only marry taller men? If height is such a drawback in society, it becomes increasingly harder in my mind to justify marrying a shorter woman. Which I'm sure is what many women think of short men, even the very good short men.

I don't think any women anywhere are going to be devastated to find out a short man finds it "increasingly harder" to "justify marrying" her, considering the overwhelming majority of women wouldn't want anything to do sxxually/romantically with a short man to begin with.

A short man interested in marriage who turns down any woman willing to actually get married to him is like a beggar refusing to eat a plate of home-cooked food because it wasn't made by a 5 Michelin-star chef.

At what point do you take a step back?

In your case, I hope it's soon, because the only thing you're doing with your irrational rhetoric is misleading people into trying to look for solutions to heightism in the wrong place ("activism"/SJW ideologies).

[myloginacct]

Oh, man, this is a lot. I'll just try to clarify what's possible.

Don't know what you mean by the last part of your post. If you're suggesting that "bad" (i.e. unattractive, physically undesirable) traits are bred out because of "personality" traits again, then you're simply wrong. They get bred out because they're physically undesirable. Height is a sxxually dimorphic feature. Humans are a sxxually dimorphic species.

That's what I meant. Undesirable characteristics are bred out. I didn't imply personality or anything else. I alluded to "evil" because it sucks to be the human with an undesirable characteristic, but my point was precisely that the breeding out wasn't evil in nature. It may seem "evil" on the surface, but that's just how we work.

Get real. Lookism and heightism are at all-time highs in 2018, and it's only going to get worse as time goes on, not better. Why would it get better? What's your reasoning for making this absurd claim?

You didn't get my point here, but I also didn't explain it well.

I'd say how good you look is slowly becoming less important, as just showing you have healthier genes or a warrior body isn't as important anymore for societal success, but that's besides the point. I believe in the far distant future aspects of ourselves, like height, will be so plastic that other evolutionary factors are going to be more relevant. If anyone could easily and cheaply increase their height at any point in their lives, why would natural height be one of the most important factors in choosing a mate? It'd be even hard to tell who's 100% natural and who isn't, and easy to "fix" the height of your children or husband.

Feel free to disagree.

"They" don't say this. Friedrich Nietzsche did. And you're misinterpreting the quote.

I know it originates from Nietzsche. The full quote is: "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

If I hate heightists, I should be careful to not become what I hate myself. Like it or not, parts of the full quote have become an idiom by now.

Seriously, do you know "most people" on earth, or even "most people" who are short? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your own opinion?

This was following from my previous statements. It's my own opinion. What most people do [after reading too much into heightism] is starting to blame some unrelated problems on their height. Not everyone, and not the problems that are actually related to heightism. In short, reading too much about it causes some people to see heightism where it doesn't exist, as far as I see it.

I don't think any women anywhere are going to be devastated to find out a short man finds it "increasingly harder" to "justify marrying" her, considering the overwhelming majority of women wouldn't want anything to do sxxually/romantically with a short man to begin with.

I'm aware of the irony. I don't want to think like the people I dislike. That's the problem here; I don't want to become the monster.

Also, you know not everyone here is short, right? There are a lot of average guys and even some tall guys in here. All the internet jokes of "being a manlet if you're 6'1 and under" are bringing awareness of heightism to men who would probably never think much about it before. Tall and average guys have a lot more options on which partners to pick. After reading all the kind of shxt short men go through in these forums and seeing those peer-reviewed studies, why would they pick a short woman over an above-average woman? Why would they want to risk subjecting their sons to that?

Also, I don't want to give too much detail about myself. Although I'm short, I live somewhere I could still reject the shorter women and pick based on their height. However, I don't want to become what I hate. Reading so much about negative and positive heightism is starting to influence me in a way that it shouldn't. Rejecting someone for their height shouldn't be how I approach relationships.

In your case, I hope it's soon, because the only thing you're doing with your irrational rhetoric is misleading people into trying to look for solutions to heightism in the wrong place ("activism"/SJW ideologies).

You're reading too much into my posts here. I'm discussing what was brought up for discussion.