Stunting is defined as being at least 2 standard deviations (SD) below the average of the reference group for your height, sex and age. Wasting is defined as being at least 2 SD below average weight for your height and sex. The reference group is an international sample of socio-economically advantaged breast fed children.
Commenter “Someguy” pointed out that using stunting rates to measure how malnourished a certain ethnic group was is faulty because some groups might be genetically shorter than others. I agree but was unsure if this genetic difference would show up in young children. After all, the World Health Organization (WHO) claims children of all ethnic groups grow similarly when breast fed and born and raised healthy, at least up to age five, and so a single reference group can be applied internationally.
Further, Arthur Jensen stated that (in his population) height has a heritability of 0.95 in early adulthood, but only 0.30 in infancy. With genes having only moderate effects in the first years of life, this made it seem quite plausible that all races (with the exception of pygmies) could use the same growth chart to measure nutritional status.
However even comparing different races in First World countries show large differences in early childhood height. For example averaging across ages zero, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 years, Dutch boys (see table 1) are 1.02 SD taller than Japanese boys (Japanese SD used since the Dutch one not provided).
To be sure this is much smaller than the 1.93 SD height gap that shows up at age 17.5, consistent with the square root of height heritability being almost twice as high in early adulthood compared to infancy.
It is sometimes said that in most ethnic groups, well nourished kids are within half an SD of the WHO growth chart so close enough, but if one population is half an SD above and another half an SD below, that’s a 1 SD difference!
And because small differences in the mean create huge differences at the extremes, a 1 SD gap means the shorter group will show about 7% of their population stunting while the taller group will show only 0.6% despite the fact that both groups have equal nutrition! That’s a little too much error for comfort.
If the World Health Organization is serious about measuring malnutrition, they should invest in getting us better polygenic scores for height. Only then could they say with accuracy that a given population is below their genetic height potential, and thus malnourished.
Pumpkin Person 
a man who can sing like this and talk like a man is sexy.
i heard that jackson’s echt voice was like james earl jones’s.
Dear God, you love black men: Denzel, Afro, Michael Jackson, Misdreavus (or as you probably call him Miss Dreamy).
Usually gay men eschew black men, but you are one black man loving gay man.
Speaking of height, do you believe in the variability hypothesis, PP? The only data I’ve seen show similar SDs in that variable for men and women. Was thinking about this recently after that transgender person was dethroned as Jeopardy! champ; funny to me that the winningest “female” in the show’s history is effectively male (not to be rude).
I assume that testosterone and “autism” contribute to greater aggression and obsession in pursuit of one’s interests, thus partially explaining why males predominate the high-achieving end of the spectrum, but what about the other end? Some say it’s chromosomal (X+Y leads to more variation than X+X). Is the hypothesis well-substantiated psychometrically in your opinion? It definitely seems like “geniuses” and “retards” are overwhelmingly male.
I’m usually pretty skeptical of claims of groups differences in SDs because the SD is more sensitive to sampling problems than the mean or median but the “The Scottish mental survey of 1932 (SMS1932) recorded mental ability test scores for nearly all children born in 1921 and at school in Scotland on 1 June 1932.” The test had 76 questions and boys averaged 38.6 correct ( SD 15.7) and girls averaged 37.2 ( SD 14.3).
I’d say that’s pretty strong evidence since this study was more like a census than a sample. Of course one problem with all sex difference studies is some IQ tests deliberately removed items or even whole subtests that favored one sex over the other. Don’t know if this would affect the variance though.
Damn the president of Harvard was essentially ousted back in 2005 because he mooted the idea that the variability hypothesis may contribute to female underrepresentation in STEM. He was a big Democrat too.
Fucking scary that the world’s preeminent academy, an institution supposedly placing the pursuit of truth above all else, will cancel one of their own for citing data that contradicts their agenda. Sorry, folks. Reality doesn’t necessarily always conform with liberal idealism. Shame on you. It’s only gotten worse too. People think being receptive to “illiberal” explanations for certain things is asking to condoning Holocaust denial and inciting violence. The West is done.
The guy that got cancelled from Harvard was Larry Summers and hes one of the nomenclatura that rule the US so yes, it was very surprising.
Thanks, I suspected something like that was going on.
At age 4.5 the difference is 1.46 SD and at age 5.5 it’s 1.48 SD, so about 3/4 of the 17-year old difference.
I think stunting is measured on all kids under 5, or up to 5, (different sources say different things)
I see. The difference in the tails would be significantly larger than you calculated though if one were to use age-specific differences.
If I used those specific ages, but some ages under 5 had much smaller differences. That’s why I calculated it for all ages under 5 and then just took the average.
So you averaged the differences in height SD, correct? What I’m saying is that if you calculated age-specific *stunting rates* and *averaged those*, then I think the differences in stunting rates would be bigger.
peepee has this bizarre idea that blacks are more muscular than whites and manchus/mongolians…sioux.
no.
black athletic superiority where it exists is entirely the result of allen’s rule.
but it is true that south asians suck at sports even though they often have the same proportions as blacks…long legs, long arms, short torso for their height.
because south asians have no muscles and are incapable of bodybuilding.
look at ving rhames (5’11”) and bruce willis (5’11”) in the sitting height test…a test mugabe always wins…
Humans should be less sensitive to allen’s rule than any other animal because we can adapt and thus are body’s don’t need to.
are body’s
Holy shit. Slow down, PP
sorry our
and *bodies
for an intelligence blog this place rather close-minded. i mean to say that openness correlates with intelligence more than any other personality trait and you guys lack personality. sorry not sorry.
some goy got in trouble when a jew asked him why there aren’t more black QBs or baseball managers.
he said something totally reasonable: “wypipo are better at swimming!”
and the jews said: “but that’s because blacks have almost no chance to become olympic level swimmers.”
both were right.
1. so few black olympic swimmers or skiers or whatever is easily explained by lack of access/sampling.
2. there are totally obvious reasons to believe that wypipo and ne asians should dominate swimming.
i feel sorry for rr if he thinks southern italians aren’t part of the volk.
they are.
you are.
rr.
obviously almost 100% of black men and white men are gross.
BUT…
why white men don’t need to feel un-sexy as result of black men’s total domination of some sports or positions in some sports.
like the 40y dash is used to cancel white running backs even though the speed a running back needs is a lot less than 40y.
allen’s rule again.
the shorter the sprint the more competitive are whites and chinamen.
seriously.
it’s not just manfred kokot and su bingtian.
what mugabe has claimed is now confirmable by all…
it was considered shit at the time…
but as far as tv series go…
there’s no comparison.
the point was propaganda…make the cocaine trade look goyish.
a gentile man makes shit.
who is Misdreavus?
A black man Mug of Pee is pining for