Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 16:43:23 GMT
Natural selection made women feel more physically attracted to tall men than short men. Natural Selection's making women feel more attracted to tall men than to short men happened in prehistoric times. In prehistoric times, if a women had children with a short man, the woman's children would be less likely to survive to adulthood. In prehistoric times, if a woman had children with a tall man, the woman's children would be more likely to survive. The reason is that if a woman had children with a short man, a tall man would likely come along and beat up the short man or otherwise bully/intimidate the short man into no longer being the woman's mate. This is because tall men tend to have a natural physical advantage in a physical fight with a short man. The woman who gave birth to the short man's children would have to mate with the tall man, or she would have no mate at all, as the tall man would not allow the short man to mate with her. The tall man would be willing to take care of his own children with the woman, but the tall man would not be willing to take care of the short man's children with the woman. Therefore, if a woman mated with a tall man in the first place instead of a short man, the woman's children would be far more likely to survive. This theory is the consensus among anthropologists as to why natural selection made women feel more physically attracted to tall men than short men. The theory seems plausible to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Jan 14, 2020 17:14:37 GMT
Who told you all of this? Most of your theory can't be stated as fact on the mere basis that there is no way that it could be proven even if it were true. How are there enough prehistoric skeletons lying around to even begin to piece together a halfway-plausible theory about height preference in caveman romance? Furthermore, there is absolutely zero way to prove prehistoric anecdotes about tall cavemen neglecting stepchildren that had short fathers because it's not like they wrote blogs about their personal lives, and there is also no proof(or any half-decent method to even begin proving) all of the other sociological trends you spoke of. There are absolutely zero credible anthropologists who have said anything even close to these fictions that are all assumptions on what cavemen must've felt. You can't base credible theories on assumptions about caveman feelings, especially when viewing them from a modern perspective. Perhaps, some crackpot, armchair evolutionary psychologists on Youtube would believe this type of stuff, but the truth is that evolutionary psychology isn't even accepted as a science in the academic world; It's merely considered a philosophy(at-best)
Granted, I will concede that the tall man's advantage(or perceived advantage) in a physical altercation can be backed by science as being one of the cornerstones of heightism, but to add an evolutionary psychology spin that is based on the gossip that occurred around the campfire(once fire was discovered) is careless and akin to the methods that people use to make excuses for heightism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 19:19:03 GMT
Who told you all of this? Most of your theory can't be stated as fact on the mere basis that there is no way that it could be proven even if it were true. How are there enough prehistoric skeletons lying around to even begin to piece together a halfway-plausible theory about height preference in caveman romance? Furthermore, there is absolutely zero way to prove prehistoric anecdotes about tall cavemen neglecting stepchildren that had short fathers because it's not like they wrote blogs about their personal lives, and there is also no proof(or any half-decent method to even begin proving) all of the other sociological trends you spoke of. There are absolutely zero credible anthropologists who have said anything even close to these fictions that are all assumptions on what cavemen must've felt. You can't base credible theories on assumptions about caveman feelings, especially when viewing them from a modern perspective. Perhaps, some crackpot, armchair evolutionary psychologists on Youtube would believe this type of stuff, but the truth is that evolutionary psychology isn't even accepted as a science in the academic world; It's merely considered a philosophy(at-best) Granted, I will concede that the tall man's advantage(or perceived advantage) in a physical altercation can be backed by science as being one of the cornerstones of heightism, but to add an evolutionary psychology spin that is based on the gossip that occurred around the campfire(once fire was discovered) is careless and akin to the methods that people use to make excuses for heightism. I don't have a good enough wifi connection to write this on my laptop (which has a decent keyboard). I am limited to my cell phone at this time, so it would be too tedious to respond with as much detail as i would like. I read this theory several years ago on a science-based website on the internet. I don't remember the exact name of the website. It might have been from the Anthropology dept. of a university. I agree that there is no way anyone can prove this theory. Doesn't this theory seem plausible though? "There are zero credible anthropologists that believe this." That is your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Jan 14, 2020 19:41:43 GMT
Who told you all of this? Most of your theory can't be stated as fact on the mere basis that there is no way that it could be proven even if it were true. How are there enough prehistoric skeletons lying around to even begin to piece together a halfway-plausible theory about height preference in caveman romance? Furthermore, there is absolutely zero way to prove prehistoric anecdotes about tall cavemen neglecting stepchildren that had short fathers because it's not like they wrote blogs about their personal lives, and there is also no proof(or any half-decent method to even begin proving) all of the other sociological trends you spoke of. There are absolutely zero credible anthropologists who have said anything even close to these fictions that are all assumptions on what cavemen must've felt. You can't base credible theories on assumptions about caveman feelings, especially when viewing them from a modern perspective. Perhaps, some crackpot, armchair evolutionary psychologists on Youtube would believe this type of stuff, but the truth is that evolutionary psychology isn't even accepted as a science in the academic world; It's merely considered a philosophy(at-best) Granted, I will concede that the tall man's advantage(or perceived advantage) in a physical altercation can be backed by science as being one of the cornerstones of heightism, but to add an evolutionary psychology spin that is based on the gossip that occurred around the campfire(once fire was discovered) is careless and akin to the methods that people use to make excuses for heightism. I don't have a good enough wifi connection to write this on my laptop (which has a decent keyboard). I am limited to my cell phone at this time, so it would be too tedious to respond with as much detail as i would like. I read this theory several years ago on a science-based website on the internet. I don't remember the exact name of the website. It might have been from the Anthropology dept. of a university. I agree that there is no way anyone can prove this theory. Doesn't this theory seem plausible though? "There are zero credible anthropologists that believe this." That is your opinion. It's not merely my opinion that evolutionary psychology is widely rejected as being a bunch of non-scientific hocus-pocus by the academic community. No, it doesn't seem plausible. Nothing that assumes the beliefs of the left part of the evolutionary chain before written language existed will ever be plausible. The nature elements aren't even that important when the nurture elements of heightism aren't being addressed in the modern era. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 20:24:06 GMT
I don't have a good enough wifi connection to write this on my laptop (which has a decent keyboard). I am limited to my cell phone at this time, so it would be too tedious to respond with as much detail as i would like. I read this theory several years ago on a science-based website on the internet. I don't remember the exact name of the website. It might have been from the Anthropology dept. of a university. I agree that there is no way anyone can prove this theory. Doesn't this theory seem plausible though? "There are zero credible anthropologists that believe this." That is your opinion. It's not merely my opinion that evolutionary psychology is widely rejected as being a bunch of non-scientific hocus-pocus by the academic community. No, it doesn't seem plausible. Nothing that assumes the beliefs of the left part of the evolutionary chain before written language existed will ever be plausible. The nature elements aren't even that important when the nurture elements of heightism aren't being addressed in the modern era. We will have to agree to disagree on this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 9:20:20 GMT
I have a problem with the people that promote heightism or imply that heightism is the natural order of things and that there's some sort of caveman mentality at work. (and there's more than a few articles on my website from so-called academic sources that indicate this) The people that seem to believe that heightism is some sort of natural phenomenon and that tall people, and particularly tall men should be revered, respected and given accolades, more money, better positions and more sex, also seem to abhor the idea that there are racial or ethnic differences and that these differences are biological in nature. It seems to me that some (or even many) of the people who promote heightism - mostly against short men and not short women - would cringe at the thought of claiming for example that Whites are genetically more intelligent than Blacks. My understanding is that Whites collectively have a 10-15 point higher on average IQ (as measured by intelligence tests) than Blacks. ( The Bell Curve) Yet, many or most of the types that claim heightism is "evolutionary" would NEVER claim that Whites are biologically intellectually superior to Blacks. What is claimed by the Liberal Left is that intelligence tests are biased to favor Whites and are constructed by White people to favor White people. Virtually none of these types considers heightism the same way. As a matter of fact, whenever these SJW types see a White man complain about heightism, they're quick to label, lambaste, and attack wantonly without any argument or logic to back it up. And heightism is by-and-large directed at short men and NOT short women. This would indicate a strong bias against men, but NOT against women, as the vast majority of articles on my website (99+%) have to do with men and not women, and it's not because I refuse to display any articles about heightism against women, it's because it's extremely difficult to find any. This would indicate to me that heightism by the media is directed almost entirely at short men. These same types - SJW and Liberal types - would never claim a biological basis for any kind of claims of Superiority over any other group -- except in the case of Tall men over Short men. They have no compunctions about doing this whatsoever. It's either one or the other. If we're all equal racially, ethnically, sexually, sexual orientationally, then we're all equal with respect to height - in other words tall men are NOT better than short men, yet the media unabashedly promotes this, and we see an abundance of hatred directed at short men (NOT short women) on twitter and elsewhere, with no consequences for the Haters. This is the Height of Hypocrisy.
SFTS, respectfully, your post here does not relate to the OP in any way, and it should have been on a separate thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Jan 15, 2020 16:22:45 GMT
I have a problem with the people that promote heightism or imply that heightism is the natural order of things and that there's some sort of caveman mentality at work. (and there's more than a few articles on my website from so-called academic sources that indicate this) The people that seem to believe that heightism is some sort of natural phenomenon and that tall people, and particularly tall men should be revered, respected and given accolades, more money, better positions and more sex, also seem to abhor the idea that there are racial or ethnic differences and that these differences are biological in nature. It seems to me that some (or even many) of the people who promote heightism - mostly against short men and not short women - would cringe at the thought of claiming for example that Whites are genetically more intelligent than Blacks. My understanding is that Whites collectively have a 10-15 point higher on average IQ (as measured by intelligence tests) than Blacks. ( The Bell Curve) Yet, many or most of the types that claim heightism is "evolutionary" would NEVER claim that Whites are biologically intellectually superior to Blacks. What is claimed by the Liberal Left is that intelligence tests are biased to favor Whites and are constructed by White people to favor White people. Virtually none of these types considers heightism the same way. As a matter of fact, whenever these SJW types see a White man complain about heightism, they're quick to label, lambaste, and attack wantonly without any argument or logic to back it up. And heightism is by-and-large directed at short men and NOT short women. This would indicate a strong bias against men, but NOT against women, as the vast majority of articles on my website (99+%) have to do with men and not women, and it's not because I refuse to display any articles about heightism against women, it's because it's extremely difficult to find any. This would indicate to me that heightism by the media is directed almost entirely at short men. These same types - SJW and Liberal types - would never claim a biological basis for any kind of claims of Superiority over any other group -- except in the case of Tall men over Short men. They have no compunctions about doing this whatsoever. It's either one or the other. If we're all equal racially, ethnically, sexually, sexual orientationally, then we're all equal with respect to height - in other words tall men are NOT better than short men, yet the media unabashedly promotes this, and we see an abundance of hatred directed at short men (NOT short women) on twitter and elsewhere, with no consequences for the Haters. This is the Height of Hypocrisy.
SFTS, respectfully, your post here does not relate to the OP in any way, and it should have been on a separate thread. The literal first two words of the OP are "natural selection" and SFTS' post is an explanation of how evolutionary theories are used against short men, therefore, it's not difficult to see how the two posts relate to one another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 19:07:43 GMT
SFTS, respectfully, your post here does not relate to the OP in any way, and it should have been on a separate thread. The literal first two words of the OP are "natural selection" and SFTS' post is an explanation of how evolutionary theories are used against short men, therefore, it's not difficult to see how the two posts relate to one another. Yes, SFTS talked about evolutionary theories, but SFTS's post did not discuss my theory on why natural selection caused women to feel more physically attracted to tall men. |
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Jan 15, 2020 19:17:58 GMT
The literal first two words of the OP are "natural selection" and Joe's post is an explanation of how evolutionary theories are used against short men, therefore, it's not difficult to see how the two posts relate to one another. Yes, SFTS talked about evolutionary theories, but Joe's post did not discuss my theory on why natural selection caused women to feel more physically attracted to tall men. That's because this isn't a forum about attraction, it's a forum about heightism. Joe's comments are more on-topic than your original comment. There's no need to debate this any further. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 19:19:30 GMT
Yes, Joe talked about evolutionary theories, but Joe's post did not discuss my theory on why natural selection caused women to feel more physically attracted to tall men. That's because this isn't a forum about attraction, it's a forum about heightism. Joe's comments are more on-topic than your original comment. There's no need to debate this any further. I thought about this. You're right. My entire thread is off topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Heightism Report on Jan 15, 2020 19:23:07 GMT
That's because this isn't a forum about attraction, it's a forum about heightism. Joe's comments are more on-topic than your original comment. There's no need to debate this any further. I thought about this. You're right. My entire thread is off topic. It's ok man. We allow tangential issues to be discussed here because many have an indirect correlation to heightism, and we can discuss whether or not these issues are distractions from what we need to be discussing. Don't be gunshy about posting anything. This forum has needed a shot in the arm for a while so we're glad that you're bringing us some more activity. |
|
