> hardshortworker wrote: >

Assuming 5'6-5'7 was the average in those countries, those 5'8+ should be the top shelf producers, critical thinkers and the most intelligent, equivalent to guys 6'+ over here. 

I dont have any data on the height of men in my country (and I havent lived there very long.. only as a kid) but what little Ive rea is the average woman is 4'10-4'11.5... given the average woman is ~5 inches shorter than the average man in western countries, probably for S.E Asian countries the average woman is 4.5" shorter than the average man... making the average man 5'2.5- 5'4 ... making me shorter than average in S.E Asia as well... 

So, Im a good example myself of being shorter than average but still smart - AKA its only a correlation, not an iron law of nature or anything.

> hardshortworker wrote: >

My dad does not believe in the Anne Case paper, though maybe that is because of confirmation bias?

So, what DOES your dad believe then? I personally, have no strong beliefs... the data is too contradictory... I would just LIKE the Anne Case paper to be true.

Im not sure what you are asking? Its **fairer** because the market is rewarding people based on the **RELEVANT** qualities the people bring to the market. If you're a smart short guy, the market will still reward you for being smart. Theres no (well, less) discrimination on a trait (height) which has no objective value in the economy.

>So all of those in the 5'6+ range SHOULD be smarter on average because that would be the taller end of the spectrum of those populations. Assuming 5'6-5'7 was the average in those countries, those 5'8+ should be the top shelf producers, critical thinkers and the most intelligent, equivalent to guys 6'+ over here. My dad does not believe in the Anne Case paper, though maybe that is because of confirmation bias?

There would be more tall asians who are smarter of course. But smartness is innate and it just correlates with height. But in reality its a totally different thing, it just happened to be co-selected along with height. So in Asia, if the average is 5'6, and you were 5'1, you would have reason to feel down and depressed, unless you, yknow, took a 12 minute IQ test (the Wonderlic) or a 2 hour WAIS test... and found out you were one of the exceptions.

>So then are you saying it is a FAIR stereotype that all Asians are supposedly "smart"?

I have no idea what you mean by 'fair' in this context. You are going to have to ask more specific or detailed questions explaining your thought process.

> hardshortworker wrote: > How do you feel about those studies that show taller people are smarter than shorter people on average? Do you believe it to be true or is it just another form of height bashing?

Depends on what you mean by 'feel'.

Objectively, Ive been bullied, made fun of, ignored, discriminated against in my life, a lot more than if I had been 6 inches taller. My IQ is still sky high (measured by the WAIS)... so I dont personally 'feel' that environment has a huge impact on IQ... aka its mostly heritable/genetic.

On a logical level - its a positive trait, so it should be selected for... so there is probably truth to the statement "taller people are smarter" - because its obvious (rightly or wrongly) that taller people are also selected for.

The key to understanding my point of view is to combine both above viewpoints. Leading to thinking about both points separately.

For example, an asian immigrant from a population with an average height of 5'4, will still have a high IQ if he moves to a country where the average male is 5'10, because its largely inbuilt.

I think the reason many shorter people hate the observation is they take it as another attack on them by everyone else. In my view however - it is freeing! If you are a short guy with a high IQ, you will only face minor discrimination (0.75-1% of youur income per inch instead of 1.5-2%!) - its a fairer world!

Let me explain, in black and white terms, what I mean by fairer (the real world is of course, more murky).

Imagine you are a short engineer - you have no qualms against a better  engineer, shorter or taller, making more money than you or being more respected. But you would have qualms about a taller engineer, making more money and being better respected than you if he was as good an engineer or worse than you. Simple merit. One is fair, one is unfair.

(The real world murky part could be for example, maybe the taller engineer has a girlfriend and you dont, so you get depressed and dont work as hard).

P.S Your dad's boss who makes 200K in MIS probably believes in the Anne Case paper too, if he was asked about it.

> hardshortworker wrote: > But how do you approach this? Do you assume that you will not get to be CEO or make more money or have you tried and not had success. A lot of the IT and MIS guys that my dad works with are in the 5'3-5'7 range and they make tons of money.

My life story is private so I cant tell you personally.

All I can say is the data points to different things... very hard to reconcile at this point.

Personally, I prefer the Anne Case study which states that IQ makes up for something like half the per inch premium, reducing it to ~$400 per inch, or about 0.75-1% an inch. But obviously, thats because I am smart and its in my best interest.