Women Want Tall Men

[worm]

maybe they're seen as less masculine/more feminine if they're lacking in stature? (see, we even have a dual-meaning expression).

[Ed209]

Using Dawkin's selfish gene theory, then I guess it's because tall men will give woman tall children, and tall children are a better survival machine than short childen for continuing the existence of the woman's genes.

[brighteyes]

Using Dawkin's selfish gene theory, then I guess it's because tall men will give woman tall children, and tall children are a better survival machine than short childen for continuing the existence of the woman's genes.

[feral chile]

That's a bit circular though isn't it? Woman like tall men because they want tall children who when they are older will be wanted by other women who want tall men to produce tall children who when they are older will be wanted by other women who want tall men to produce tall children...

Edited May 22, 2011 by feral chile

[saratink]

I'm about 5ft5 maybe half an inch taller and I prefer tall men. No idea why.

[Ed209]

That's a bit circular though isn't it? Woman like tall men because they want tall children who when they are older will be wanted by other women who want tall men to produce tall children who when they are older will be wanted by other women who want tall men to produce tall children...

[worm]

Using Dawkin's selfish gene theory.

[worm]

then I guess it's because tall men will give woman tall children, and tall children are a better survival machine than short childen for continuing the existence of the woman's genes.

Edited May 22, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

I wouldn't bother in matters of culture. Feral's point was an application of much better theory.

[feral chile]

I was just pointing to a very highly regarded scientific theory, by one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists.

Why? I'm talking about biological programming. Human emotions and intellegence are able to overide this. I can't think of too many species where the woman doesn't want to have children. They wouldn't be very sucessful. Human intellegence can also overide the need for a tall man allowing woman to fall in love and want children with short men. If a woman just wanted a child from a stanger, without a relationship, I imagine she would almost always look to mate with a tall man.

Being able to look after children is also key to the survival of the gene so yeah that is also likely. The other things are social and I'm not saying they won't be important. I'm trying to make the point that there's probably biological coding that means woman will naturally be more attracted to tall men.

Edited May 22, 2011 by feral chile

[worm]

I was just pointing to a very highly regarded scientific theory, by one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists.

Edited May 23, 2011 by worm

[worm]

mmm, I'm always attracted to naturalistic theories - I like to think we're still animals under the designer labels. So I'm very drawn to thinking that there are primal forces going on.

[eFestivals]

I'm talking about biological programming. Human emotions and intellegence are able to overide this.

Ohhhhhh - can you prove that?

No you can't. There's a wealth of "knowledge" (that's really nothing more than poor assumption) that's based on the idea you've expressed, but there's absolutely no proof behind any of it.

Our "biological programming" has a whole heap of what we often call 'instinct' inside it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing where that might affect our intellectual or emotional responses.

The nature vs nuture debate is regarded by many to be over, but that's unproven bollocks.

[Katster]

I dated one short guy once. He had the worst little dog syndrome ever. Idiot.

[worm]

Our "biological programming" has a whole heap of what we often call 'instinct' inside it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing where that might affect our intellectual or emotional responses.

Edited May 23, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Surely instinct is found within emotions and intelligence though, rather than programming. Your heart doesn't pump blood instinctively does it. It is programmed to. You may become emotionally fearful when presented with a dangerous stimulus though. The preservationary response to the emotion of fear could be said to be instinctive.

I've no preferred way or referring to it or thinking it as being. That's ultimately of no consequence.

We have an 'instinct' to "self preservation" (as well as other things). The way in which we enact that self-preservation is leant behaviour, but the fact of the instinct of self-preservation itself is not.

Intellectually we might all like to believe that we'd sacrifice our own life for our child's, but that intellectual idea will not always win out against the instinct for any of us unlucky enough to put that idea to the test.

And who's to say that that "intellectual idea" of sacrificing ourself for our child isn't driven by its own 'instinct' anyway?

Such things are completely unprovable either way, meaning that we can never know how much of us is 'instinct' or 'nature' and what is nurture.

And yet we have a society where people are given respect for having the 'nurture only' idea despite it having no basis in fact.

[worm]

I've no preferred way or referring to it or thinking it as being. That's ultimately of no consequence.

We have an 'instinct' to "self preservation" (as well as other things). The way in which we enact that self-preservation is leant behaviour, but the fact of the instinct of self-preservation itself is not.

Intellectually we might all like to believe that we'd sacrifice our own life for our child's, but that intellectual idea will not always win out against the instinct for any of us unlucky enough to put that idea to the test.

And who's to say that that "intellectual idea" of sacrificing ourself for our child isn't driven by its own 'instinct' anyway?

Such things are completely unprovable either way, meaning that we can never know how much of us is 'instinct' or 'nature' and what is nurture.

[Stalemate]

I'm about 6"2 and I have had quite a few girlfriends over the last few years, they have all been really, really short, just the way it goes.

[Ed209]

Ohhhhhh - can you prove that?

No you can't. There's a wealth of "knowledge" (that's really nothing more than poor assumption) that's based on the idea you've expressed, but there's absolutely no proof behind any of it.

Our "biological programming" has a whole heap of what we often call 'instinct' inside it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing where that might affect our intellectual or emotional responses.

The nature vs nuture debate is regarded by many to be over, but that's unproven bollocks.

[eFestivals]

So human emotions and intelligence are able to override biological programming then aren't they.

I have no idea and nor have you.

We have no idea where either starts or ends. Without knowing where each starts and ends it cannot be known how one might affect the other.

I've no idea what you're babbling on about and neither have you.

Great powers of deduction you have there. You admit to not understanding what I'm saying, yet despite that you think yourself well enough informed to know I'm wrong.

[brighteyes]

I'm about 6"2 and I have had quite a few girlfriends over the last few years

[eFestivals]

I'm not disagreeing with you, overide was maybe too stronger term. I do think Humans have some concious ability to control their biological urges, unlike other species. Monogomy, diet, pissing in a toilet, that kind of thing. I was trying to make the nature argument. Woman instinctively want tall children.

We have concious abilities, yup - but that's as far as the evidence goes with any certainty.

It's certainly not the case that other animals aside from humans don't have similar abilities - a cat with its litter tray, for example.

But there's few animals that shit where they sleep, so what part is 'instinct' (or 'nature') and what part is concious ability we can't ever know.

As I said, there's a wealth of 'knowledge' that's based on the 'nurture not nature' idea, but the two can never be isolated to know whether that's really wealth or just worthless.

I do think we're far more animalistic than worm does.

I think us humans are far too quick to dismiss our 'animal' side, as that supposed 'wealth of knowledge' gets to show. Its basis is stupid human arrogance, and not intelligence.

[Hello... I'm Johnny Cash]

Using Dawkin's selfish gene theory, then I guess it's because tall men will give woman tall children, and tall children are a better survival machine than short childen for continuing the existence of the woman's genes.

[Hello... I'm Johnny Cash]

What about women who don't want children? Bit of a sexist assumption, no?

[worm]

I have no idea and nor have you.

Edited May 23, 2011 by worm