The height pill is wrong (black pill refuted)

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

Women who're below average to average in height prefer men between 176cm to 183cm. Men who're 184cm to 188cm will be rejected by average height women for being too tall. The women who're above average in height e.g. 5'7",5'8", etc. Will reject the aforementioned height range for being too short but will select for men who're 190cm+ TALL, the medical definition of tall. Short women mate disassortatively and will select for men who're kinda tall, e.g 184cm to 188cm but, they prefer men who qualify as TALL. All women prefer TALL men over very short men, but average height women within 1 SD of the mean, prefer average to above average height e.g, 176 to 183cm. This explains the prevelance of tall men in the incel community. Because outlier height is linked to genetic load, kinda tall and TALL men will be rejected by most women. The empirical evidence supports this. Very short men will be rejected by all women. But kinda short men will be rejected by most but not all as evident with the common anecdotes we hear from red pillers about knowing a 5'6" guy who got with women back in college.

 

[AlexBrown84]

interesting theory my good sir

do you tend to get selected often as you’re above the 190cm threshold?

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

do you tend to get selected often as you’re above the 190cm threshold?

Yes, when the women are tall or short.

here's another woman who was really into me. (The distance killed it though)

 

[AlexBrown84]

Yes, when the women are tall or short. View attachment 6045View attachment 6046

here's another woman who was really into me. (The distance killed it though)
View attachment 6047

nice

i carry around the idea that men with a 5cm + height difference can’t be friends. unless they grew up together

so me and you are only relegated to an online relationship sadly

 

[IrishSnowman]

nice

i carry around the idea that men with a 5cm + height difference can’t be friends. unless they grew up together

so me and you are only relegated to an online relationship sadly

honestly it gets to a certain point where they are so tall that they aren't comp for the same people. i have a couple friends between 6'10-7' and id say i have an easier time with women at 6' then they do because of intimidation. only one that mogs more then me is 6'11 and in the NBA so duh JFL. so you might have a point about 6'2-6'4 but at some point girls think its too much height

 

[positivecoper]

nice

i carry around the idea that men with a 5cm + height difference can’t be friends. unless they grew up together

so me and you are only relegated to an online relationship sadly

brootal 8 cm diff

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

nice

i carry around the idea that men with a 5cm + height difference can’t be friends. unless they grew up together

so me and you are only relegated to an online relationship sadly

Yeah, even my online friends have all been 6'2" and up.

 

[Pained4ever]

Part of this i think is that strange looking faces that are long and lacking in harmony are more common in tall people.
I think that's part of why I look so weird

 

[Pained4ever]

nice

i carry around the idea that men with a 5cm + height difference can’t be friends. unless they grew up together

so me and you are only relegated to an online relationship sadly

Id say more like 12cm. 5 cm is like 2 inches

 

[Marco Pumpo]

Women who're below average to average in height prefer men between 176cm to 183cm. Men who're 184cm to 188cm will be rejected by average height women for being too tall.

You shouldn't have any issues with women because of that height in the West. And if you still think you are too tall, move to the Netherlands, you will be considered normal there.

nice

i carry around the idea that men with a 5cm + height difference can’t be friends. unless they grew up together

so me and you are only relegated to an online relationship sadly

Id say more like 12cm. 5 cm is like 2 inches

Fortunately you are wrong. I'm 180cm and surprisingly I have three good friends who are around 195cm and I got to know them at a later stage in life (university or after).
Tall guys can indeed come across as intimidating initially. The first times I met them I wasn't super inviting and rather eyed them suspiciously. For 2 of these guys I think I just got used to their height over time and the other one even kept trying to attract my attention until I realized he was actually really nice and interesting. So if you are tall and are able to demonstrate others that you are only looking down on them physically but not in other ways, you should be able to make friends.
To be honest there are still a few situations in that I would probably discriminate against tall guys. I.e. if i'd had to look for a flatmate and invite total strangers, I would probably not pick a guy who is 2m and looks strong. Because what if he turns out to be mental? I might have a hard time then if he freaks out.

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

You shouldn't have any issues with women because of that height in the West

Not true. The incel community is crawling with men who are kinda tall to tall in height. The studies have finalised on this height discussion back in the early 2010s. And they found that above 6'1", women start selecting against it.

And if you still think you are too tall, move to the Netherlands, you will be considered normal there.

I'd be kinda tall in Netherlands. They've been declining in height since the 80s.

 

[Marco Pumpo]

Not true. The incel community is crawling with men who are kinda tall to tall in height. The studies have finalised on this height discussion back in the early 2010s. And they found that above 6'1", women start selecting against it.

Oh really... According to this you have no right to complain:

I'd be kinda tall in Netherlands. They've been declining in height since the 80s.

In most countries it may feel weird sometimes to be that tall, but in the Netherlands it can feel weird to be normal at times. I remember walking into a shop in Amsterdam and I was the only one there with the cashier who was as tall as me. When I finished paying and turned around 4 guys had started queueing up, all of them a whole head taller than me. I felt like a dwarf in giant town in that moment.

 

[MACHETE]

Women who're below average to average in height prefer men between 176cm to 183cm. Men who're 184cm to 188cm will be rejected by average height women for being too tall. The women who're above average in height e.g. 5'7",5'8", etc. Will reject the aforementioned height range for being too short but will select for men who're 190cm+ TALL, the medical definition of tall. Short women mate disassortatively and will select for men who're kinda tall, e.g 184cm to 188cm but, they prefer men who qualify as TALL. All women prefer TALL men over very short men, but average height women within 1 SD of the mean, prefer average to above average height e.g, 176 to 183cm. This explains the prevelance of tall men in the incel community. Because outlier height is linked to genetic load, kinda tall and TALL men will be rejected by most women. The empirical evidence supports this. Very short men will be rejected by all women. But kinda short men will be rejected by most but not all as evident with the common anecdotes we hear from red pillers about knowing a 5'6" guy who got with women back in college.

im 1.75m and this sounds like cope af

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

Oh really... According to this you have no right to complain:

That's a made up chart with no data set. You're an idiot.

im 1.75m and this sounds like cope af

Throwing the word cope around isn't an argument.

 

[bombom0123]

being tall makes it harder to make male friends but good for females

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

being tall makes it harder to make male friends but good for females

Unless the males around you are similar in height. I agree with you overall. Most men will be jealous of tall statured men.

 

[Marco Pumpo]

That's a made up chart with no data set. You're an idiot.

Well then it blends in perfectly with your general bullshitting without sources.

But since there is in fact no proof that this is actually coming from Bumble, I will further help you out of your delusion:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Minimum-and-maximum-preferred-height-means-AE-SE-in-relation-to-subject-height-for-men_fig3_236670565

If you search for a woman above 165cm you should be fine with her upper limit.

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

Well then it blends in perfectly with your general bullshitting without sources.

But since there is in fact no proof that this is actually coming from Bumble, I will further help you out of your delusion:

View attachment 6246

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Minimum-and-maximum-preferred-height-means-AE-SE-in-relation-to-subject-height-for-men_fig3_236670565

If you search for a woman above 165cm you should be fine with her upper limit.

"I will further help you out of your delusion"

You've linked a chart with no dataset. Highlighting that it is you who's, In fact, delusional and ill researched.

My post is a summary of the study below of female choice and male stature preferences. Here's the data set.

MATE CHOICE AND HUMAN STATURE: HOMOGAMY AS A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING MATING PREFERENCES

Abstract. Assortative mating for human height has long attracted interest in evolutionary biology, and the phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous hum

academic.oup.com

Firstly, I'll start off by stating that the study you've linked as counter evidence was published on an obscure journal. My study has been peer reviewed and is thus more credible.

Secondly, the data was collected by asking men what they're actual height was. Men notoriously lie about their height to improve their chances. Their height was never measured. The data set is thus completely worthless.

Lastly, the study specifically stated that it can't be used as evidence for a universal preference. Because differing ethnicities have different stature preferences.

From politics to Tinder: Why do so many men still lie about their height?

Whether it’s the lifts that a politician wears to a rally or the inches that a single man adds to his height on a dating app, the world is still obsessed with the issue of male stature

english.elpais.com

 

[Acion]

The blackpill is gay

 

[receivedPronunciation]

Disagree.

It's about the height of the offspring. Short women want the tallest men since they know their sons will be short otherwise. Tall women just want a man taller than them, not 195+ or whatever BS. If you go on r/short whenever some turbo manlet like 5'3 somehow finds a gf, she is always 5'11 or 6' + in height.

The reason why there are tall incels is because face > height and most importantly: NO AUTISM > face > height. The blackpill is only law at extremes. When you are short and ugly it is law. When you are chad or NBA player height it is law. You cannot be an incel at 6'7. At 6'2 you are not rare. It means women wont reject you on height and it is a bonus, but then it is down to your face, oh and you're also a complete autist... yeh nvm she will reject you and find another 6'2 guy.

There is little variation in attractiveness between a 50th percentile face man and a 90th percentile face man. It is when you get to 98th percentile, 99th, 99.5th etc, that's when the blackpill becomes profound (basically online dating). For most men, looks is the only reason they cant get shit online. For around half of couples, who meet IRL via social circle etc, your biggest shortcoming is being autistic / mentally ill or having no places to meet women IRL e.g working in STEM, not living in a college dorm, no social circle from High school.

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

The reason why there are tall incels is because face > height and most importantly: NO AUTISM > face > height.

More bullshit from you. Autism is synonymous with bad genes. Meaning, autistics are uglier on average. PTSD is very similar to autistic behaviour. So, most 'autistics' were probably born NT but because of bullying and lack of socialising, they've mentally developed to be all fucked up. And assholes like you will offset all the blame on their mental state when it was their looks that made them the way they are via people treating them like shit.

How many fucking times do we have to prove that behaviour matters very little with getting laid?

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

Disagree

You haven't linked any studies proving that tall men on the extremes can't be incel.

For around half of couples, who meet IRL via social circle etc, your biggest shortcoming is being autistic / mentally ill or having no places to meet women IRL e.g working in STEM, not living in a college dorm, no social circle from High school.

More people than not don't have success via social circles now a days.

There is little variation in attractiveness between a 50th percentile face man and a 90th percentile face man. It is when you get to 98th percentile, 99th, 99.5th etc,

Not true. Most women don't find facially 50th percentile men attractive on average. Heck, most men aren't even attractive to women, hence their inability to court women in the short term.

 

[Marco Pumpo]

"I will further help you out of your delusion"

You've linked a chart with no dataset. Highlighting that it is you who's, In fact, delusional and ill researched.

I had the second study in mind already but didn't even bother to search it again because I got the impression that I was the only one caring about scientific sources in this forum anyway. And then I bumped into the Bumble stats. But I agree that we can discard it since it's only traceable back to Reddit and doesn't point to an actual source on Statista.

My post is a summary of the study below of female choice and male stature preferences. Here's the data set.

MATE CHOICE AND HUMAN STATURE: HOMOGAMY AS A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING MATING PREFERENCES

Abstract. Assortative mating for human height has long attracted interest in evolutionary biology, and the phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous hum

academic.oup.com

Firstly, I'll start off by stating that the study you've linked as counter evidence was published on an obscure journal. My study has been peer reviewed and is thus more credible.

Fair enough, peer reviewed is good.

Secondly, the data was collected by asking men what they're actual height was. Men notoriously lie about their height to improve their chances. Their height was never measured. The data set is thus completely worthless.

Of course men lie about height in online dating. But in online dating you see the profile first and then meet. In the study the speed dating works the other way around. The subjects' choices are not based on the survey answers but on the speed dating events they do. "before the speed-dating event starts, the speed-daters spend several minutes interacting while standing, allowing assessments of height.". If both say yes, it's a match and they can see each other's data (height etc.). So there is actually no incentive to lie like in online dating where the profile determines if you will ever meet. If you lie in the speed dating you would only harm yourself if it's match because then you come across as a lier without even having improved your chances.

It is not the only study pointing in that direction. The one you posted has also cited other studies that say women prefer men to be taller than them by 18,1cm, 10,2cm and 15cm.

Lastly, the study specifically stated that it can't be used as evidence for a universal preference. Because differing ethnicities have different stature preferences.

From politics to Tinder: Why do so many men still lie about their height?

Whether it’s the lifts that a politician wears to a rally or the inches that a single man adds to his height on a dating app, the world is still obsessed with the issue of male stature

english.elpais.com

That's the case for all studies. The one you posted only applies to France.

Also it is small, only involving 95 females.


It all makes sense but the suggested preference windows just seems very small, maybe they have been too strict about it with their calculation models. I.e. this would mean that I would wish for a woman between 168 and 172cm. But my ideal preference even lies above that, like around 174cm. I may be an outlier though. Also I would never discard them if they're 165, I even had girlfriends for years who were 160.
I'm not saying their results are wrong, just keep in mind that these optimal statistical averages should not be confused with actual acceptance in reality. So being outside that grey area doesn't mean "it's over" at all. It would probably be more realistic to draw an area around the grey bars that is slowly fading into white.

Disagree.

It's about the height of the offspring. Short women want the tallest men since they know their sons will be short otherwise.

This is only somewhat true. The data is showing that shorter women don't want the tallest men but shorter ones than the tall women want. However, the preference doesn't ascend linearly, so in other words, shorter women want the man to be relatively taller than them compared to taller women. Just take a look at the lines here https://geomax.me/threads/the-height-pill-is-wrong-black-pill-refuted.4713/post-55011

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

allowing assessments of height."

The height of the men was never measured. Making any assement and selection by the women completely worthless. For all we know, the men they've selected measured in at a mere 5'11", but he tells the speed dating company that's he's 6'1".

It is not the only study pointing in that direction. The one you posted has also cited other studies that say women prefer men to be taller than them by 18,1cm, 10,2cm and 15cm.

Again. When they factored in assortative mating for height, the other studies get debunked.

 

[Marco Pumpo]

View attachment 6256

The most striking result about this is actually good news for tall and bad news for short and even average men and women. Because it says that for all these (potential) couples with women under 169 and men under 184 one of them or both will never be fully satisfied with the other's height.

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

The most striking result about this is actually good news for tall

No, it's not. You've failed to comprehend the study. Men who are classified as tall statured e.g 190cm plus in height, are not in the prefered height range that most women like, e.g 176cm to 183cm and are thus too tall.

Because it says that for all these (potential) couples with women under 169 and men under 184 one of them or both will never be fully satisfied with the other's height.

It doesn't say that at all. You're lying and making up things as you go along.

You've lost this debate.

 

[Pained4ever]

No, it's not. You've failed to comprehend the study. Men who are classified as tall statured e.g 190cm plus in height, are not in the prefered height range that most women like, e.g 176cm to 183cm and are thus too tall.

It doesn't say that at all. You're lying and making up things as you go along.

You've lost this debate.

You guys are fucking gay as shit

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

You guys are fucking gay as shit

Shut your mouth you inbred faggot.

 

[Marco Pumpo]

It doesn't say that at all. You're lying and making up things as you go along.

You've lost this debate.

It does say that. Read the description of figure 4.

And btw I don't give a shit about winning or losing whatever debate with some random incel. I'm just interested in useful info. And the most striking thing that I pointed out was not even meant to counter anything. It's just an interesting finding for most people, not for you of course because all you care about is defending your tallcel theory like a guard dog.

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

It does say that. Read the description of figure 4.

And btw I don't give a shit about winning or losing whatever debate with some random incel. I'm just interested in useful info. And the most striking thing that I pointed out was not even meant to counter anything. It's just an interesting finding for most people, not for you of course because all you care about is defending your tallcel theory like a guard dog.

'Our statistical analysis also allows us to estimate the preferred height for both women and men while taking into account the variability introduced by individual differences. These estimates correspond to statures of 183 cm and 168 cm for males and females, respectively. Hence, both sexes appear to prefer heights that are significantly above the sample means, although not extremely so

Based on studies on height and reproductive success, Mueller and Mazur (2001) proposed that female preference for male height should be positively directional and unconstrained, meaning that a woman's preference scores should always increase with a male judge's height. Conversely, Nettle (2002a,b) argued that in both sexes, mating preference functions could be better described by an inverted U-shape. Here, we found that for both sexes, an inverted U-shape fits our data significantly better than a simple linear relationship. This firmly demonstrates the presence of a ceiling effect on preferences for both sexes, and it does not support an unconstrained directional preference for male height.'

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

It does say that. Read the description of figure 4.

And btw I don't give a shit about winning or losing whatever debate with some random incel. I'm just interested in useful info. And the most striking thing that I pointed out was not even meant to counter anything. It's just an interesting finding for most people, not for you of course because all you care about is defending your tallcel theory like a guard dog.

You've failed to comprehend the study. It stated that there's a linear correlation for homogamy, DUH.

You're the stupid fool who thought he could comment on my post and dominate me. Look at how that backfired on you?

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

And btw I don't give a shit about winning or losing whatever debate with some random incel. I'm just interested in useful info

Clearly you're not. You posted a random arse chart with no data set and then you linked a study that has a flawed data set. You've posted nothing but useless shit because you're a moron.

 

[Marco Pumpo]

You're running in the wrong direction here guard dog. I've never attacked your conclusion for the "medical tall" people from the study that you posted.

i said the description of figure 4 says that for all these (potential) couples with women under 169 and men under 184 one of them or both will never be fully satisfied with the other's height. That's bad news for short and average people. And good for 184 and above which i consider tall because clearly above average (not medical tall).

 

[currylarper]

i aint reading all that

 

[Pained4ever]

Lol

 

[QuantativeAnalyticalBS]

i said the description of figure 4 says that for all these (potential) couples with women under 169 and men under 184 one of them or both will never be fully satisfied with the other's height. That's bad news for short and average people. And good for 184 and above which i consider tall because clearly above average (not medical tall).

Yes. The only couples who're satisfied are when both are in the kinda tall. My post is a combination of two studies.

To summarise. Homogamy accounts for a large percentage of height preference in females. Because of disassortative mating, a good portion of short and kinda short women will exclusively prefer tall men. Likewise, a good portion of tall women will prefer kinda short men 5'5"/5'6".

 

[AlexBrown84]

fuark i ain’t reading all that