I always find it fascinating when status hierarchies contract themselves. Take a billionaire prostitute like our very own Marsha for example. When it comes to wealth she’s at the top of the hierarchy, but when it comes to occupational prestige, she’s rock bottom.
When it comes to men, physical status is determined by both height and body mass. Both tall men and muscular men act like they superior to short and scrawny men, patting them on the back like their kids and addressing them with condescending terms like “buddy,””chief” and “tiger”.
But what happens when these hierarchies conflict: A tall skinny man vs a short muscular man. Which one has more status? Who condescends to who?
I once read an anecdote about some huge bodybuilder of mediocre height who was yelling at his girlfriend from so far away it was impossible to tell who he was yelling at. Meanwhile some tall scrawny nerd walked by and said “I know you’re not talking to me in that tone.” The bodybuilder was furious that despite being built like a tank and devoting hos whole life to working out, some scrawny nerd was acting like he was tougher, simply because of height.
Among white American males, one standard deviation of height is 2.9 inches, meaning men typically differ by 2.9 inches in height. The comparable standard deviation for fat-free body weight is 27 lbs. If you could permanently increase your height, but only by a comparable and permanent decrease in lean weight, would you do it? If you could permanently increase your lean weight, but only by permanently decreasing your height, would you do that instead?
Lee Priest is an example of a guy who’s about 2 standard deviations below average in height, yet about 2 standard deviations above average in lean weight, making him both the biggest and shortest guy in almost every room he walks into. How does that affect his place in the male status hierarchy?
Teejay Briton is at the opposite end of the spectrum:
OPRAH-ME [THE TRUE PHILOSOPHER] ESSENTIAL AESTHETICS PREVAIL's said:
”Who has the most status in our society”
Be a stupid but selfish ”wuait” macchu
The Social Justice Warrior said:
What if you want to be neither and a different gender instead?
OPRAH-ME [THE TRUE PHILOSOPHER] ESSENTIAL AESTHETICS PREVAIL's said:
You’re a simbiosis of your mother and your father [or relatives]. Think about it.
The Philosopher said:
Anime os by far the sexiest man here.
Isn’t the standard deviation of fat free mass lower than 27 pounds at a given height?
Height and fat free mass are strongly correlated.
For someone who is 5’10”, one standard deviation range would be 113 to 167 (assuming N(140,27)). But much, much more than 66% of the population is within that range. If fact, something like 90% of the population would be within the range.
So the distribution is narrower at a given height
27 is roughly the SD for US white men in general but yes, at at a specific height the SD is much less
Mikey Blayze said:
My independent research points to the human male Archetypal body and in the eyes of women, being 6 ft 5, young with lean muscle, and extreme physical fitness. A young 6 ft 5 Olympic level sprinter, or even swimmer as a modern day example. Then there is the human, neanderthal hybrid male archetype, 6 ft 5, small, short, compact,box frame torso, and arms much shorter than expected by height, extra, body muscle and fat, and a big burly over sized beard. The current worlds strongest man is a modern example.
remember guys an Archetype, as Plato would say, is an ideal Form. Most men will never match up to the Archetype, however women will crave it and men will want to be it. Every kid grows up wanting to be and look like a super hero. Archetype definition, a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors present in the collective unconscious.
Yes, Mikey, archetypes are embedded as visual images in the unconscious mind. They serve as a lexicon for the human mind to communicate effective intent on what one truly desires. The earliest human memories are embedded deep inside us, that is why we have irrationality.
Mikey Blayze said:
hmm great observation!
Crowley will be one of the next 3 articles
mikey blayze said:
Looking forward to it!
Height. Because most people will never hit their genetic muscle potential and there’s always steroids to push you past your natural limit.
“But what happens when these hierarchies conflict: A tall skinny man vs a short muscular man. Which one has more status? Who condescends to who?”
Who’s more confident?
Doesn’t matter, I have a top-tier personality verified by my genomic profile. I think y’all could agree on that.
Mikey, I’d even go as far as to say that all things communicated today through verbal language comes from images we had as early modern humans. Our entire communicative process is dealt with the same way that early modern humans must’ve had, as body language still remains so significant to the human mind even though it is strongly a relic of the past.
As for strength and height, it comes down to whether you want to be a gorilla or a monkey. Chimpanzees, our ancestors, were lean and preferred to swing on trees, thus reinforcing their ideal body onto us. For the most part, we’ve evolved to have a kinesthetic mind that runs parallel to the chimpanzee mind as well. The way we fight, the body necessary to run up and down trees and find food and what not. It all comes from chimpanzees.
The Social Justice Warrior said:
“The way we fight, the body necessary to run up and down trees and find food and what not. It all comes from chimpanzees.”
No it comes from CNN.
The Social Justice Warrior said:
Long live CNN!
The Social Justice Warrior said:
Why are you moderating literally everything I say now?
I am 5 ft8 but muscular. I want to be taller PP. Not to get women or something. I have a woman. I just look out of shape. I always wanted to look in shape. I started trying to build my muscles before hitting 19-20 and this affected my height.
I learned a lot from him. I wish I knew RR then too
But if you were taller you’d look less muscular because the muscles would be spread out. Or is that what you want?
Which is why one would work out seriously with a high protein diet. Flexatron won the previous Olympia over Phil Heath who is considerably shorter than Flexatron (in regard to bodybuilding).
Shit nevermind. Flexatron is 5 10. Heath is 5 9. Flex looks a hell of a lot taller in his pictures.
I legit thought Flex was 6 to 6 1. I’ve never looked at his height. His limb length confused me in regard to his height
yes. I feel I look more muscular for my height.
You have too much for your height?
The comment was a reply to PP
I kind of disagree with the questions. PP essentially asked the questions in terms of a 2 SD disparity between height and weight(and then for 4 SD in subsequent options). That is far too great a disparity. Women and more broadly human beings select for survivability and embedded in our perception of survivability is the idea of proportionality. Someone mentioned the idea of the archetypes that go as far back as Plato with his ideal forms. Plato’s ideal forms are not a crude approximation nor are they a tangible sense of what is optimal, they are the mindset one needs in order to pursue and correctly orient themselves towards the ideal. As such one has to weigh a lot of factors before getting to those ideals. For example for every inch gained in height one loses out in close quarters agility and manoeuvrability. So it is possible that past a certain point height no longer serves as a physical advantage. Similarly with overall mass.
In any case I think the questions should have been posed with just 1 SD difference(ie 1 SD+ in height average lean weight, or 1 SD+ in lean weight and average height) When posed with a 2 SD or 4 SD difference this basically goes against proportionality and that appears to be somewhat of a no no with human sensibilities particularly if that puts one significantly below the average in height(given our instinct to favour height as it is a fixed quantity in the real world vs the easily shifting variable of weight).
So by my reckoning what gives the greatest survivability advantage(and therefore prime among female and male selection criteria) is lean weight(hence why all serious combat sports have weight classes and not height classes) and as such as long as I am guaranteed average or above average height, weight is always the better option assuming this option is fixed for life. Of course in reality things don’t quite work that way which is why most people(particularly women) would choose the taller person knowing that weight is always something that can be changed while height isn’t. Meaning that a 6’1″ frame has greater physical potential than a 5’10” frame in virtually all sports. It can potentially pack more muscle mass and enjoy greater leverage and reach advantage but loses out in agility and ability to turn on a dime. However if both at the same weight, the physical advantages of the taller person are minimal as the major and most important variable(lean mass) is fixed and equal. As such lean mass super-seeds height as a selection criteria as long as it does not go too far against proportionality(2 SD + height/weight disparity) or too far outside the mean.
Having said all this my sense is that women appear to select men that are about 2 SD taller than themselves and about 2 SD heavier too. I think that if the disparity is much greater than that between women and men overall favourability is reduced. It’s not impossible but you would rarely find a 6′ 7″ guy with a 5′ 1″ girl. So what this means is that past a certain point excess height becomes unappealing to women, and therefore less desirable. By my experience that sweet spot appears to be around 6′ 1” though it may have crept up to 6′ 2” in the last decade or so(within certain circles). If most women prefer a 2 SD disparity and perhaps be comfortable with a 1- 3 SD but not more than 4 SD(IMHO) and no less than 0 SD, it seems to me that 3 SD(9 inches taller than the average woman at 5′ 4″) is where the sweet spot is. Tall enough that 99.9% of women will be shorter and within an acceptable range for 85% of women. That height appears to give the greatest bang for your buck in terms of selection(all else equal). Note that women not only select men that they desire but also men that are deisred by many women too. This raises the status of the man and renders him a greater catch for the woman.
This in as much as it pertains to female selection, which most men put prime in terms of their perception of the ideal. Of course most men’s preference is also informed by their own physical ranking compared to other men(outside of female sensibilities) but this too is not a one size fits all as height also comes with physical disadvantages beyond a certain point as does lean weight.
By “lean weight” you mean fat free muscle mass? Two people can be the same weight but of course vary greatly in fat-free muscle mass.
Very true. Yes I am talking about lean mass. Also note that one can be short but stocky with broad shoulders, thick bones long arms and a heavy set frame(thus having a greater natural lean weight than someone a full standard deviation taller). A gorilla is often shorter than the average man but twice the weight and 5-10 times the power(due to those massive arms and power muscle fibers).
For example for every inch gained in height one loses out in close quarters agility and manoeuvrability.
Tall people are heavier & heavier people have less agility, but I’m not sure if height impedes agility independently of mass.
Teejay Briton is probably a hell of a lot more agile than lee priest despite being a foot taller. I actually think tall scrawny guys have the most efficient physiques because they have the speed, endurance & caloric requirements of a small guy but the reach, stride, jumping ability and bird’s eye view of a big guy. Best of both worlds & may help explain why evolution made us taller yet less robust than our ancestors & why we also defeated our stumpy Neanderthal cousins
“I actually think tall scrawny guys have the most efficient physiques”
Depends on what you mean by “most efficient physiques”, as height is related to limb length and levers affect what one excels at.
“Tall people are heavier & heavier people have less agility, but I’m not sure if height impedes agility independently of mass.”
That is quite the misconception. Of course height impedes agility! Note that what I mean by agility is short distance spurts and sharp manoeuverability. As a former amateur sprinter I have put quite a bit of thought into this. It is only recently due to Usain Bolt that our preconceptions have been turned on their heads. However make no mistake this is a one off freak occurence and probably won’t overturn conventional thought on the matter.
Typically the ideal height for a sprinter ranges between 5’11” and 6′ 1′. Any taller than that and people tend to lose out in the start phase and anything significantly shorter than that people tend to lose out in top speed and endurance. In fact the average height of top flight sprinters is around 6 foot and prior to Carl Lewis all top sprinters were roughly around 5’10”. Better training techniques have allowed taller sprinters to take advantage of the final phase(better enduranced training) of the race and reduce their starting phase disadvantage.
A good way to wrap your mind around this is by looking at stride frequency and length of the top 2 sprinters in the world a decade ago during Bolt’s 9.58 WR.
“In the final heat on 100m in World Championship in Berlin Bolt(at 6’5″) made 41 steps with an average length of 2.44m. His closest competitor Tyson Gay (height 5’11”) made 45.45 steps with the average length of 2.20.”
If these were punches to the body Tyson Gay could put in about 10% more punches over roughly the same period of time. In combat this is a major advantage hence why despite a significant height disadvantage at 5’10” Mike Tyson dominated the heavyweight division for over a decade due to the speed and power he could generate.
another good example is the fastest feet in the world:
He’s only 5’4” but moves like a hamster on a wheel hopped up on speed. See the shorter one is the shorter the distance each stride is the higher the stride turnover per second which is advantageous over short distances and sharp bursts. In close contact sports this is an advantage however the bigger men usually make up for this due to their sheer size assuming they fulfill all the other necessary qualities for a top flight competitor.
In short, most sensible women would choose an average height man at 1 SD + in lean weight rather than an average weight man at 1 SD + in height(all else equal of course, looks, intelligence, status, likeability etc). The shorter man would simply outmatch the lighter man in 1 to 1 combat and women do actually take that into account on the final tally. Of couse this is hypothetical assuming the weight is fixed for life.
So in reality what advantage a taller person might have in combat is almost entirely countered by the advantages that a shorter person brings to the game given an equal weight(it varies from sport to sport, some body types are better suited for some sports eg tall people in basketball). The most impactful advantage a taller person has is that they very often have a higher lean mass potential(or ceiling) than shorter people and given our modern ability to squeeze out every ounce of potential from our bodies women and society in general have developed an obsession with taller people. This idea is not entirely without merit but IMO people place way too much emphasis on it and often overlook what by far is the MOST important factor in sport(particularly combat sport), that being lean mass. Lean mass has a very high correlation with power and speed, though past a certain point it may hamper speed if the muscle mass is not of the fast twitch type. Weight lifting does tend to enlarge slow muscle fibers more particularly if the lifting is done incorrectly. As such the high status(pardon the pun) given to height is in large part socially constructed and has far less to do with real world utility than people think.
Pumpkinhead, a good way to test your theory would be to look at the best fighters in the world. On average they’re way above average in both height & lean mass, however if their height is greater than expected for their lean mass, your theory is debunked, otherwise it’s confirmed.
In the case of mike Tyson it’s confirmed but he’s just one man
“Pumpkinhead, a good way to test your theory would be to look at the best fighters in the world. On average they’re way above average in both height & lean mass, however if their height is greater than expected for their lean mass, your theory is debunked, otherwise it’s confirmed.
In the case of mike Tyson it’s confirmed but he’s just one man”
Indeed that would be a good way to test my theory. I propose basically looking at lean weight for height of top tier fighters vs amateur fighters vs non fighters. Using BMI could work as long as weight is controlled for. My sense is that particularly with combat sports heavy set thick boned individuals(ie large wrist circumference) tend to do better than slender types. As such a thick boned heavy set but athletic type(as long as it doesn’t hamper speed) will do better than a slender taller fighter of equal weight due to the lower center of gravity and more robust build. We have to be careful when looking at heavyweights as that is an open class of 206-265(for the UFC) and given that range of weight taller men would more easily be able to reach the higher limit in weight with lean efficient muscle mass. In fact I think it is this range(unlimited in boxing I believe) that has created this misconception that taller is always better for fighting. Simply not the case, given an equal weight according to this study taller can be a disadvantage if we control for weight:
Note that within weight class BMI is positively correlated to number of wins of female athletes. This certainly backs up my theory as BMI is mass divided by the square of the body height.
According to this site(http://www.fightmatrix.com/2012/09/11/stat-of-the-day-average-height-at-each-weight-division/) however there seems to be a slightly different outcome, top fighters in the MMA appear to enjoy half an inch advantage over all other fighters in the same weight class however it is very slight and this can in fact be explained through loopholes in the rules of the game. Essentially MMA weight classes exist on a range of about 10 – 20 lbs. Meaning there is a minimum cut off and a max cut off for that weight class. It therefore stands to reason that taller fighters are better able to maintain a higher weight given the correlation of height to body weight within the same weight class. As such the taller fighters often enter the fight with a weight advantage over their shorter opponents even if they are theoretically in the same weight class. In addition some really tall fighters who walk around naturally well above the weight class max, cut weight just before the fight through various means(extreme dehydration) just so that they can make weight and then rehydrate and probably enter the fight a few pounds heavier than their opponent and well over the max for that weight class. This is also seen in boxing and pretty much all other combat sports. This probably explains all of the top fighter to all fighter disparity in height.
I still content that the most important factor is lean weight with height giving some advantages that get cancelled out by advantages the shorter fighters enjoy. I simply see no logical reason that height should matter at all except for maybe the reach advantage it may provide(though reach seems to function somewhat independently to height, you get some short fighters with incredible reach and tall fighters with unimpressive reach). Actually reach no longer enjoys the reverence it once had, there are ways for fighters to get around that by changing their fighting style. Also with regard to leverage what matters is not the limb length but rather the tendon insertion point to arm length ratio. If that ratio remains the same one can produce the same force regardless of limb length with the same muscle mass. Which means that taller fighters probably gain most of their power advantage from having longer thicker bones to pack more muscle around which has nothing to do with leverage. Advanced body building techniques have mitigated this to some degree.
Once again I think a fair amount of the status taller people enjoy in society is simply socially constructed and perhaps to some degree unwarranted once we correct for lean body weight.
In fact upon further inspection it appears that the first study I presented showing a postive correlation between BMI and number of wins is quite definitive. It is obscured somewhat by the height data of top fighters in the subsequent link I provided but once you parse through it you’ll realize that at face value it is highly misleading and actually hides a deeper truth that seems to corroborate my intuition on the matter.
You’ll notice that the height advantage top fighters have only becomes evident at the welterweight class and higher. All lower classes actually show a marginal edge for shorter fighters. In fact they show this edge despite there being a 10 lb range from lower limit and higher limit for each respective weight class. This implies that essentially taller fighters in that weight class will cluster at the high end of the range and shorter fighters will cluster a little lower within the same range. My guess is that there might be up to 5 lb difference between tall fighters and shorter fighters within the same weight class. Yet despite this shorter fighters still enjoy a slight advantage in terms of performance. This however gets reversed from welterweight upwards but notice why, the range goes from 10 lb to 15 lb from welterweight to middleweight, 20 lb range for light heavyweight and 60 lb range for heavyweight. This extra range allows the taller fighters to cluster even higher than shorter fighters in weight within the same class thereby giving them a performance edge. Note that with heavyweights the disparity reaches almost a full inch. In fact by my claculations this height disparity is far too small to account for the weight range each class has and further proof that height has little to no effect on fighting ability(weight is what matters and more specifically lean muscle mass). If anything given the evidence thus far it may in fact give a fighter a disadvantage against shorter opponents of equal weight.
Of course with a sport like boxing(as opposed to the wrestling/grappling allowed in MMA), if there is too much a difference in height for example a 6’5″ fighter against a 5’5″ fighter both at 175 lb(in theory this is possible) I might put my money on the taller fighter due to the fact that the shorter fighter might not even be able to reach the taller fighter’s face. However within a reasonable difference say up to 6 inches i think the shorter fighter has the edge If nothing else for the fact that more of their lean weight is devoted to muscle instead of skeletal mass(which for all intents and purposes is dead weight that the fighter needs to lug around). This may in fact be the major reason shorter fighters seem to outperform their slightly taller competitors of the same weight, their percentage of muscle mass to overall body weight is much greater. Also lower center of gravity probably helps too as well as shorter range of motion(which translates to higher frequency albeit perhaps with lower force). This probably more than makes up for the reach disadvantage which as I said can also be mitigated by a change of fighting style.
Short muscular man has more prestige. The tall scrawny guy is more likely to be a nerd. Any idea what happened to Robert Lindsay
Height matters for women
You are right it does matter but not nearly as much as displacement(ie lean mass). It’s only given more importance as of late due to the fact that height is obviously correlated to overall weight and offers a greater ceiling of achievable weight particularly given today’s technology and ability for people to pack on muscle much more efficeintly and cheaply than ever before in history. During older times your lean mass was very much tied to your genetics unless you spent a lot of time putting sheep and cows over your shoulders. Today we have the luxury to pointlessly lift chunks of metal in the gym without it significantly impacting our ability to make money.
“Today we have the luxury to pointlessly lift chunks of metal in the gym without it significantly impacting our ability to make money”
Speak for yourself.
LOL, I did not mean it in a derogatory way. Actually it’s not pointless at all I take that back. If done properly it is to our benefit in terms of health and makes us more attractive to the opposite sex. I was using the word pointless from the perspective of the average pre-20th century person.
Fascinating post!!! But off-topic article to follow (want to know Pumpkin’s thoughts about the below):
The Social Justice Warrior said:
Yeah this would be great. I’d finally make it to Harv -awwd
Her tests sound fascinating. I too have argued that the best test of intelligence (as defined as cognitive adaptability) would be a computer simulation.
But I don’t want to live in a testocracy. It’s more interesting when tests are used to secretly predict success not outright determine it. Life itself should be the only test that determines life success
The Social Justice Warrior said:
“Her tests sound fascinating. I too have argued that the best test of intelligence (as defined as cognitive adaptability) would be a computer simulation.”
No the best IQ test is real life. All domains are tested.
real life tests a lot more than just intelligence
Computer simulations? Why not just monitor people while they’re dreaming? Maybe their brain activity or complexity of dreams?
OPRAH-COACH [THE TRUE PHILOSOPHER] ESSENTIAL AESTHETICS PREVAIL's said:
”No the best IQ test is real life”
Off-topic – go see the movie Us. It’s damn good. (I think Hereditary was better but not by much.)
The Philosopher said:
Ho rr id like to also recommend the movie hidden figures and 10 milllion uesrs a slave. Both depict the harsh evil nazi oppression our beautiful young blacks must suffer in order to become nasa scientists.
What about Get Out? Haven’t seen it but I know the premise of it.
rr makes me think the guido stereotype is true. said:
you are a shame on the house of saud.
The Philosopher said:
Reading about the supreme court ruling on illegal immigrants rights on mar 19th. Not going to explain it. google it if u want the detail. But anyway the article ends up saying conservatives prefer textualism to liberals ‘human rights’ framework. Frankly BOTH are wrong. The only way to interperet a law is not being an aspergers idiot about it and seeing the obvioys INTENT of the constituion. Im not even american and can still understand original intent. the only people that pretend it doesnt exist are people like [redacted by pp, March 27, 2019]
caffeine withdrawals said:
Ugh tell me about. I’m still waiting for an explanation of how the 14th amendment “protects” gays.
What’s your reading of the second amendment?
caffeine withdrawals said:
This is one of the best comments I’ve read. A takedown of so-called “skeptic” societies:
“I used to set up placards offering evidence that Shermer’s “beliefs” were ridiculous where his “congregation” would have to pass them on their way to his “services” at Cal Tech. I called the area “The Gauntlet of Truth.”
I sent him this open letter a few years ago.
An Open Letter to The Skeptics Society
Why do you call yourselves “Skeptics?”
“Devoted Defenders of the Paradigm”
would be more accurate.
Skeptics are intellectual rebels who
challenge the views of those in authority,
often risking reputation, livelihood and
sometimes life itself.
In every instance I am aware of,
The Skeptics Society comes down on the
side of authority, risking nothing!
A Skeptics Society member teaching English
Lit somewhere risks nothing agreeing with
his department head that the “man from
Stratford” wrote the plays and poems.
A Skeptics Society member teaching psychology
risks nothing agreeing that intelligence is a
function of a material body and expires with
A Skeptics Society member risks nothing
at a cocktail party by decrying Intelligent
Design and “going way out on a limb” in
defense of the Theory of Evolution.
Do you so-called “skeptics” ever stick
your necks out?
I hear you saying, “We can’t help it if they
finally got the paradigm right and we
recognized the fact!”
That’s what they all say—in every era
about every paradigm.
It just came to me! You are skeptical
about one thing. You are skeptical about
If you had lived in his day, you would have
been heaping up faggots and arguing over
the privilege of applying the torch to
Giordano Bruno, a skeptic worthy of the name.
Zan Overall, The Skeptics’ Skeptic.”
The article it was posted under from is also worth reading:
Yes that is a good comment.
Most self-declared skeptics just attack alternative theories while sucking up to big Pharma
caffeine withdrawals said:
Exactly. It’s the same with global warming and the whole “Scientists say…” schtick. Not that it isn’t real or man-made, but any sane person even remotely familiar with the science knows that it’s not an imminent threat to mankind, like Shermer’s sycophants think it is.
OPRAH-COACH-ME [THE TRUE PHILOSOPHER] ESSENTIAL AESTHETICS PREVAIL's said:
”Not that it isn’t real or man-made, but any sane person even remotely familiar with the science knows that it’s not an imminent threat to mankind, like Shermer’s sycophants think it is.”
Just make me 6’2″ and have an IQ of 145<. Thanks.
Pumpkin, how does practice effect work on similarities and matrix reasoning? Is it that only some people get the practice effect, or is it that the test taker is just in a better mood the second time.
With raven you get used to the concept. Certain types of patterns tend to repeat
Autism “male brain” study retracted. Ouch…
The brain is a mosaic. There are no principled criterion for” male and female brains.”
Will link more papers on false positives re sex differences in the brain as well. Admit it: “male and female typical brains” do not exist.
You nincopoop, first of all the link you provided is broken, I wonder why LOL Secondly you just linked a paper by Daphna Joel(once again) the number one crackpot social “scientist” with a blatant feminist agenda. How could there possibly be such a thing as a feminist scientist? Only idiots allow their politics to influence their science. Not only that but did you notice that ALL the authors of the paper were females? Does that not raise any alarms with you or are you one of those naive male feminists?
There are far more similarities between white and black men than there are between white men and white women or black men and black women. If race is not a social construct and we can definitely see differences between races down to the genetic level then of course there are sex differences and more to the point differences in the brain between males and females(ie male brain and female brain).
You’ve been cucked man, I wonder which rich gym feminazi(possibly with a hot bod, at least I hope so) is pulling the strings inside your brain.
First para: so what? Who cares about the sex of the authors?
Second para: no one denies sex differences; the claim is that “male and female brains” don’t exist.
Third para: I’m single.
And it’s not broken. You have to log in. Just search “autism male brain study retracted.”
“First para: so what? Who cares about the sex of the authors?”
You are naive AF.
“Second para: no one denies sex differences; the claim is that “male and female brains” don’t exist”
If one defines a male brain as one that tends towards a particular configuration and a female brain that tends to a distictly different configuration then we can certifiably reject the claim that “male and female brains” don’t exist”. All you have to do is take 10 or so(or more, in fact very likely many many more) variables and collect data on where most men cluster on those dimensions. If we do this correctly we will certainly see a distinct difference between men and women enough that we coulf predict the sex just by looking at the brain(90% plus accuracy). End of effing story.
Look at it this way, lets try to determine height(and through this infer the sex of the person) but for some reason this quality is obscured or contested. So we instead try to collect data on other body parts(except for genitalia) and infer height from them. We look at foot length first, well there are some short people with insane shoe sizes so it’s not the ideal proxy. Maybe we should gather more data, hand size, femur length, head size etc. At some point we will have gathered enough data that we could with a high degree of accuracy predict the height of the person and the sex. The same principle applies to the brain.
“And it’s not broken. You have to log in. Just search “autism male brain study retracted.””
Right, and what exactly does the retraction prove? Poor methodology is poor methodology you will find people of all sorts of convictions making “mistakes”.
“You are naive AF.”
Who cares about the sex of the authors?
“If one defines a male brain as one that tends towards a particular configuration and a female brain that tends to a distictly different configuration then we can certifiably reject the claim that “male and female brains” don’t exist”
1 You’ve never answered my previous questions.
When does a feature count as “male typical”? How many features does a brain need to have to be a “male typical” brain? What’s the principled criterion differentiating “male and female brains”?
2 Again: the existence of average differences does not license the inference that “male and female brains” exist. (In any case, what inference rule licenses the conclusion that male and female brains exist? I hypothesize that you won’t be able to answer this question either.) You’re claiming that there exist two different kinds of brains. You need to answer my questions.
“If we do this correctly we will certainly see a distinct difference between men and women enough that we coulf predict the sex just by looking at the brain(90% plus accuracy).”
You have to know which features are male and female typical in a given dataset to be able to predict sex. A model used to predict sex in one dataset cannot predict sex in another.
The retraction of the study buttresses the point against the existence of “male and female brains.”
In any case, I predict that my hypothesis that you’re a dishonest question-dodger will come to pass because you won’t state what features and how many of them are needed for the claim that two kinds of brain exist. I also predict that you won’t be able to state the inference rule which licenses your conclusion.
“Who cares about the sex of the authors?”
As the most intelligent beings on this planet we are equiped with a highly evolved capacity for pattern recognition. I suggest you activate yours.
“1 You’ve never answered my previous questions.”
I have, you just don’t want to admit that I have but since you seem to be unable to properly interpret information I guess I should make it as clear as humanly possible.
“When does a feature count as “male typical”?”
When most males exhibit such a feature and most females do not. For example a male brain is roughly 1-2 SD larger than a female brain. Assuming it is 1.5 SD this means that only about 7% of women will have a brain equal or larger than the male average. This is only one dimenion, there are others and when put together the chances that a female will have a brain that ticks all the right boxes for an average or neurotypical male brain are very very very small. My guess is that the intersection of females and males with regard to their brains is less than 1%. Once we factor in hormones brain chemistry and regions of the brain solely devoted to male or female body functions the likelihood that a female will have a truly male typical brain is ZERO.
“How many features does a brain need to have to be a “male typical” brain?”
At least 10 main ones but very likely countless others.
“What’s the principled criterion differentiating “male and female brains”?”
Criterion? Are you asking me to define the word “different” to you? I’ve already illustrated quite a few differences and how much of these differences are genetically determined. What else do you want? You know what I’m suspecting you have little to no formal scientific training which begs the question, why am I wasting my time responding to you?
“2 Again: the existence of average differences does not license the inference that “male and female brains” exist. (In any case, what inference rule licenses the conclusion that male and female brains exist? I hypothesize that you won’t be able to answer this question either.) You’re claiming that there exist two different kinds of brains. You need to answer my questions.”
Now you are getting hung up on semantics and what I like to call quantized binary thinking(just coined it lol). A lot of people suffer from this type of thinking particularly those ill equiped to validate their position. Quantized binary thinking is the type of thinking that only works in absolutes and functions in a binary Yes or No True or False fashion. There are no in betweens. Either there is a male brain or there isn’t there are no gradations and if there are then this is proof positive that there is no such thing as a male brain. Either that or you are trolling(most likely). Regardless it’s fun taking you down.
As for the inference rule “licencing” the idea that there are male and female brains is the fact that once brains are correctly evaluated to a set number of major dimensions we are sure to find that there will be significant divergence from males to females in configuration overall size and relative size of specific regions other qualitative differences and function. Like I’ve said before the only significant variable differentiating a chimp brain to a human brain is overall size and relative size of the frontal lobe. Other than that the structures are very similar. The real difference emerges as a sum of a lot of small differences that past a certain point it becomes irrefutable that one is a chimp brain and the other is a human brain. Similarly with males/females.
“The retraction of the study buttresses the point against the existence of “male and female brains.””
The retraction of the study was due to a major methodological error while the study was on the hypothesis that Autism is more prevalent in male typical brains. To conflate the retraction with some kind of confirmation that there are no male or female brains is utterly moronic as even if the study is proven wrong(retraction does not prove the hypothesis wrong you dullard) this only proves that autism is not a sex specific dysfunction and says nothing about the differences in male and female brains.
“In any case, I predict that my hypothesis that you’re a dishonest question-dodger will come to pass because you won’t state what features and how many of them are needed for the claim that two kinds of brain exist. I also predict that you won’t be able to state the inference rule which licenses your conclusion.”
I have stated what features and gone through several of them. I do not know all of them, is it necessary that I do? Is your quantized binary brain kicking in again such that if not all the reasons are known then no reasons are known or valid? Also the claim isn’t that two kinds or brains exist. The claim is that a very large variety of brains exist which can then be divided into two main and distinct classes, male and female, such that we can predict with a high level of accuracy if a brain belongs to a male or a female. Hence the idea of a male and female brain.
Also just look at this woman man, look at that square jaw, if ever there was a woman with some strong male-like characteristics, it is this woman. She probably wants to be a man and has some male-like inclinations and thought patterns hence why she is convinced that there is no difference between males and females. Problem is that she is likely 1 in a million. The exception does not negate the general rule, how many times do I need to hammer this point until people realize it.
According to the above link there are genes in the Y crhomosome that effect brain development and general characteristics. Allow me to remind you that the Y chromosome is carried only by males ergo brain differences between males and females enough that we can say that there is such a thing as a neurotypical male brain around which most males cluster and a neurotypical female brain around which most females cluster. The number of males that reach the female mean or females that reach the male mean are likely a lot less than 1%.
Mikey Blayze said:
Your wasting your time with Race Realist. He either A does not understand the concept of Archetypes, or B believes they do not exist. There is an Archetypal ideal masculine brain and Archetypal ideal feminine brain. Weather or not the average man and woman match up with their Archetype idk. Personally I have highly androgynous brained parents. After my siblings and I developed into adults. Myself I had an androgynous brain type, caring, forgiving, naive, 0 aggression what so ever. Although I was extremely dominant. I WANTED to be aggressive, but I just couldn’t, it wasn’t in my brain chemistry. (Also extremely hi voice for a man, despite being thin and a great athlete.) I realized the world was going to eat me alive. So I took massive amounts of testosterone injections (10X the normal amount from puberty), got the deep voice, and aggression I needed. My sister developed an androgynous brain as well, however she accepted it, and lives with the consequences. My half sister has an androgynous brained mother, however despite having androgynous brained parents, and being raised as a boy, she has a distinctly feminine brain, and is a girly girl after so many years of being brought up and raised to be masculine., Which ironically is her downfall because she is too soft to escape negative situations that befall upon her. From personal experience I can say chemicals triumph over environment. Also my half sister’s half sister, has the same androgynous brained mother, and a presumably masculine brained father ( he was in the military after all.) And She has a masculine brain type, and again lives with the consequences. I think people are much happier when their psychology matches the gender specific Archetype.
i would rather have a large AND dense brain...dense in neurons. said:
except males DO have larger brains even controlling for height and overall body size.
but then again some cetaceans have larger brains than humans and…
parrots have (large) bird brains but their brains are very dense in neurons.
my mother still feels guilty for abandoning her parrot in brazil.
parrots have personalities. they’re like dogs, despite having much smaller brains than dogs.
but in answer to the question: i’d rather be hakuho (6’4″ 350 lbs and one of the greatest athletes of all time). won the march basho 15-0. greatest of all time.
FAST FORWARD TO 4:20
ian smith said:
but if a guy like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haf%C3%BE%C3%B3r_J%C3%BAl%C3%ADus_Bj%C3%B6rnsson
competed in sumo…even the mongolians would be CRUSHED.
there’s this contradiction at the heart of health…being skinny is good…but lean body mass is good too…
and increasing lean body mass while remaining skinny is HARD for most people.
sumos have the largest lean body mass of any athletes…more than bodybuilders and weightlifters…
so maybe after a certain point gaining lean mass requires gaining fat.
You are right, health is not always linked to percentage of fat. Some extremely fit individuals are huge, what matters is how efficiently your organs and muscles work. Exercise and good nutrition are therefore prime in attaining good health, having low body fat is just the cherry on top. Very often you see some really fat weight lifters(in the heavyweight division) break all sorts of records. It is a little counter intuitive seeing someone that fat outperform lean muscle bound individuals but the truth is that despite having to lift an extra 20-30 lbs due to body fat they do this easily because that fat provides a ready energy source for their bodies. They are less likely to tap out due to energy depletion since we know that the body breaks down carbs for energy first(0 to 30 min) then fat(after 30 min) and then muscle(after 1 hour) during exercise. Breaking down muscle is more energy intensive and tends to put the body in a less than ideal physical state.
Very short/very good shape : -22
Average : -2
Short/good shape : -1
Very tall /very bad shape : 13
Tall/bad shape : 22
Rules by order of importance :
1) Height is around 4 times more important than weight for both left and right side of the tail
2) Moving slightly on the right side is more rewarded than going slightly to the left side is penalized (society is indulgent)
3) extremes are hugely rewarded or penalized
—> that why being a bit tall and a bit out of shape is the best combination in the equal net endowment distribution hypothesis.
Nice analysis. In future i’ll do a poll to rank 25 categories (the 5 height levels multiplied by the 5 lean weight levels).
Thanks Pumpkin. It’s an approximation because it just pop up in my mind without me doing any excel. But generally I am not far for the real figures. Don’t hesitate to check (some apps extract kurtosis, I ve notice Taleb uses them a lot. The more I read him, the less I think he is a genuine thinker btw. He says lots of crap. If I had time, I would rebute some of his pseudo-math sophisms)
Pumpkin, is there a Correlation between eyesight and IQ?