"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.
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.
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
