http://www.nber.org/papers/w12466
Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes
Very funny thread even if the concept of giants (genuine or imaginated) and myths is interesting -
concerning stature I can check here the problematic escapes to a lot of people:
more than a bias:
- global states populations very often without any geographic, ethnic or social background taken in account – different periods of History -
- no knowledge about the different AND CONTRADICTORY factors modifying stature: climate adaptation, food, inter-«racial» crossings or/and mating circles enlarging with more or less lasting effects on generations, physical way of life (sport at DIFFERENT AGES with DIFFERENT EFFECTS upon skeleton (and face), more or less hard hand work...) being the result that low OR high body stature can reflect EITHER AN INCREASE IN FORCE AND HEALTH OR THE OPPOSITE! A better and richer food can at first give better health than lack of food, when too much an too rich food can provide the opposite result -
economical and social (linked) conditions can modify the level stature in a country even with the same population (over generations), but as a whole it appears the European countries known for their high stature are still the higher ones today -
I already posted concerning this problem: the newly arrived immigrants in a foreign country CANNOT be taken as a good sample of their country original population (bias: social / regional / ethnic...) and it concerns every aspect of antrhopology -
the rude climatic conditions favorizing hight statures??? where are the proofs??? we could rather see the contrary in some cases: Inuits (Eskimos), Saami, Samoyeds and the opposite: the Touareg epople – don't confuse the one direction aspect of stature with a plural directions
aspect of body and limbs thickness – and don't forget the nature give the living beings more than a way to adapt oneself; the «UNIQUE-LAW» system is very rare in Nature... by the way, the Mesolithic people of western and north Europe were loosing height as time was passing... maybe some new crossings, but?... (crossings are rather supposed to encrease stature) -
&&&: always the surveys (biased for I think) about IQ linked to physical heredity:! The «old Lochie»: I suppose the most or these studies were made in the USA? They produce with great regularity and in a very short time the opposite results about everything! («papers» business?) -
I DON'T DENY any genetic aspect in IQ, but what I know is that the surveys are very often biased: social origins not taken in account, and it has a BIG IMPUT! I smile (a bit bitter!!!) when I read something like «...children about 3 years age, before going to school...» and let's devine which ones are the higher IQ-ed? The taller ones! What a surprise! But WE KNOW TODAY the «education» - and it comprises the physical treatment and affective attentions given to the babies – has a big impact even just after the birth, and maybe before, and the way of life of parents, the education and the money they have influence the baby developpement in a huge proportion! When other parameters are the same ones, who is taller among the young children: the higher social classes ones: it is very amazing, isn't it? The occupational success?: a) you have a first explanation just above: social classes + b) the ridiculous or not but apparently real prejudices concerning authority linked to stature: in the french banks I think I noticed the managerial employees were taller as a mean than the inferior categories of clerks – the intermediate managerial ones indeed, because at an higher level, when other qualities and more proofs are required the average stature seemed not so different: so the physical look play a role – it is true that a high stature can confer more confidence in oneself -
the taller men would be more intelligent than the smaller ones?: never thought! (in a same context, evidently)
