Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: SHORT MEN Message-ID: <1005@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 03:54:20 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.1005 Posted: Sun Aug 18 03:54:20 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 21:11:33 EDT References: <366@lcuxb.UUCP>, <289@ihlpl.UUCP> Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept Lines: 21 It may be that people just find height impressive. At a possibly unconscious level, we view height as a positive personal characteristic, and shortness as negative. If so, then this works within men's mindsets as much as within women's. You listen more respectfully, more ready to defer, to a taller person; and perhaps find height more attractive in a MOTAS. I sure wish I had the details here, to get it right. Corrections are welcome. There was a study which did a longitudinal follow-up of an entire graduating class (or just the men?) at some college. (Sigh, I suppose it was Harvard, and we will see comments like Whaddya mean ``some college''?) One thing they investigated was which factors, available at the time of graduation, would have been the best predictors of income ten years later. The best correlation of all -- more than grades, major field, or even family socio-economic background -- was height. As you see, my recollection of many of the details is quite sloppy, but the one point I remember most definitely was that height came out as the single best correlation. (If the study was just men, of course it doesn't say very much about how it works for women.) -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar