Post by HeightismAOS on Apr 20, 2019 6:40:16 GMT
I've seen a certain study cited here and there, where they claim tallness itself is not an advantage in the workforce, but rather it's all about confidence:
contently.com/2015/01/16/does-height-really-determine-career-success/
A few years ago, three economists, Nicola Persico, Andrew Postlewaite, and Dan Silverman, tackled heightism from a clever statistical angle. Controlling for family background, they looked at workers’ heights and earnings—which were correlated as highly as race and gender earning disparities—and then investigated how tall those workers were as teenagers. That data yielded something remarkable:
“Controlling for teen height essentially eliminates the effect of adult height on wages,” they wrote. “The teen height premium is not explained by differences in resources or endowments.”
In other words, how tall you are now actually has nothing to do with how much money you will earn; it’s how tall you were in high school that matters. Notably, the economists found that height as a pre-teen or child did not correlate to future success. Only during those crucial, awful, self-conscious pubescent years where we struggle to “find ourselves” does height play a pivotal role in our future earnings. The crucial difference between more and less successful people, it appears, is not height, but what height bestows at age 15: confidence. And just like getting started in sports early correlates to higher chances of professional success, a confident teenager will do more, get more, and be more confident at age 40 than an anxious one.
The discussion of heightism and success in America mostly revolves around speculation... We vote for the tall guy “because height conveys power.” The short guy gets the leading role “because he’s easier to work with”… except he makes less money and gets worse gigs than the tall guy. What a bunch of discriminating bastards, we are.
A few years ago, three economists, Nicola Persico, Andrew Postlewaite, and Dan Silverman, tackled heightism from a clever statistical angle. Controlling for family background, they looked at workers’ heights and earnings—which were correlated as highly as race and gender earning disparities—and then investigated how tall those workers were as teenagers. That data yielded something remarkable:
“Controlling for teen height essentially eliminates the effect of adult height on wages,” they wrote. “The teen height premium is not explained by differences in resources or endowments.”
In other words, how tall you are now actually has nothing to do with how much money you will earn; it’s how tall you were in high school that matters. Notably, the economists found that height as a pre-teen or child did not correlate to future success. Only during those crucial, awful, self-conscious pubescent years where we struggle to “find ourselves” does height play a pivotal role in our future earnings. The crucial difference between more and less successful people, it appears, is not height, but what height bestows at age 15: confidence. And just like getting started in sports early correlates to higher chances of professional success, a confident teenager will do more, get more, and be more confident at age 40 than an anxious one.
For decades, social scientists have studied what is referred to as the "height premium" -- the increased earnings that, on average, taller people receive.
A 2001 study by Nicola Persico, Andrew Postlewaite and Dan Silverman of the University of Pennsylvania, found that it's the height a person had as a teenager that matters when it comes to bringing home the bacon as an adult.
"Two adults of the same age and height who were different heights at age 16 are treated differently on the labor market," Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman concluded. "The person who was taller as a teen earns more."
"Those who were relatively short when young," they continued, "were less likely to participate in social activities associated with the accumulation of productive skills and attributes, and report lower self-esteem."
Weak self-esteem and underdeveloped social skills, can negatively affect the image one portrays to co-workers and managers as an adult. A person who lacks confidence is generally seen as less authoritative, and may have a harder time convincing employers of his or her leadership potential.
And those, ahem, shortcomings prove particularly detrimental when hiring managers determine salary.
A 2001 study by Nicola Persico, Andrew Postlewaite and Dan Silverman of the University of Pennsylvania, found that it's the height a person had as a teenager that matters when it comes to bringing home the bacon as an adult.
"Two adults of the same age and height who were different heights at age 16 are treated differently on the labor market," Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman concluded. "The person who was taller as a teen earns more."
"Those who were relatively short when young," they continued, "were less likely to participate in social activities associated with the accumulation of productive skills and attributes, and report lower self-esteem."
Weak self-esteem and underdeveloped social skills, can negatively affect the image one portrays to co-workers and managers as an adult. A person who lacks confidence is generally seen as less authoritative, and may have a harder time convincing employers of his or her leadership potential.
And those, ahem, shortcomings prove particularly detrimental when hiring managers determine salary.
Considering how the average male stops growing at around age 16, I'm trying to figure out what this clever and remarkable revelation is. I thought it'd already be obvious, that the average short teen would make less money as an adult, because the shortest teenagers are most likely to become short adults.
It seems like this research is hinging on the rare growth spurt, where a short teen becomes taller and still doesn't make more money. Thing is, we also already know that not every tall person ends up richer, as height is an advantage rather than an automatic win. Finally, being taller isn't the same as being tall. Considering how small the sample size would be for a 5'4 teen to suddenly become over 6 feet tall, let's use some realistic examples. You have a 5'4 teen and a 5'5 teen. The 5'4 teen becomes 5'6, yet still doesn't make more money than the 5'5 guy. These researchers would then (somehow) end up at the "confidence" conclusion, even though we all know the real advantage starts once you're actually tall.
But these people are really trying to claim that a 6'5 man does not have a workplace advantage over a 5'0 man, but rather it's all about confidence. This conclusion seems like another convenient case of just-world hypothesis, especially when we take into account experiments about height bias, like these two:
Thoughts? Personally, I think any study that relies on a trait like "confidence" is like if a study hinged on "faith" or "love." Things like height or income can be objectively measured. You can even measure how much people estimate a tall man earns versus a short man. Confidence on the other hand? Not so much. I think it's funny how the first article throws shade at how heightism discussions revolve around speculation, even though the "confidence" conclusion is also speculation. They took correlations about teenage height, adult income, and self-reported claims about self-esteem, then extrapolated confidence as the cause.
