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