Sunday, February 27, 2011

TwoSTDVs on height and sex

OneSTDV (who I'm a huge fan of) believes he has identified an indisputable fact of gender realism, that women rarely date men who are shorter than they are.

The problem with this assertion is that in the US, the average height is 5'10" for men and 5'4" for women'. Contemporary measures of standard deviations for American height vary a bit, from about 2.5 inches to 3 inches. For the sake of argument, we'll error on the high end and call it 3 full inches. If we take a sample with an equal number of American men and women and match them randomly with someone of the opposite sex (presuming the height distributions for both men and women are Gaussian, which is a pretty safe assumption), in only about 8% of couplings will we find a man paired with a woman who is taller than he is.

Consequently, the fact (and it is as much) is sub-optimal for use as a starting block in engaging in HBD-related conversations with those of a PC mindset because even if height was a neutral rather than a desirable trait in men, the vast majority of men would be taller than the women they are with.

Further, tying Game to HBD-realism is inherently flawed, since Game relies on men being able to train themselves to negate the realities of HBD. This is why Game most appeals to (and benefits) men who traditionally, due to the realities of HBD, have difficulty attracting women. Game gives them ways to appear to have higher levels of status than they actually do, by making themselves out to be more popular than they actually are, more self-assured than they actually are, commanding more resources than they actually do, etc. To the extent that Game is effective, it is because human biodiversity does not imply genetic determinism, only predispositions and general patterns that, to varying degrees, can be 'overcome'.

Game functions not on dwelling on biological realities and their inherently limiting factors like HBD does. To the contrary, it relies on the same optimism that OneSTDV describes political liberalism relying on:
Liberalism feels good because anyone can succeed. And this underpins its success; realist ideologies advocate fatalism and no one likes that.


13 comments:

OneSTDV said...

tying Game to HBD-realism is inherently flawed, since Game relies on men being able to train themselves to negate the realities of HBD.

I look at it from the complete opposite perspective: Game relies on the HBD/biological realities of female attraction.

Game only works because women have innate biological sensors for attraction.

So if men can pique these sensors by adopting behavior that's largely unnatural for betas, then they can "win" in the sexual marketplace.

I do agree though that Game works best in highly artificial or constrained situations (clubs, bars, text messages). If you're a beta, it'll be damn near impossible for your wife not to find out. But the beta can keep things interesting by making a concerted effort once in awhile to apply the edicts of Game.

bgc said...

Aside from 'Game' being essentially evil - or at least highly likely to be corrupting - it is merely tinkering with a 'zero-sum game' (the availability of women for sex being a fixed quantity, and 'Game' an attempt to alter the distribution). 'Game' is therefore a communism of sex.

Except if 'Game' (as a movement) was able to increase the supply of sex by making women offer more sex - e.g. by making promiscuous women beome yet more promiscuous, or by making more women promiscuous -

yet advocates of 'Game' claim that their planned manipulations and seductions are *merely* a response to the corruption of women, not a way of further increasing these corruptions.

But of course 'Game' is a con, and like all cons the first step is for the con-man himself to believe the con.

Jokah Macpherson said...

What is the actual percent of couples where the man is shorter? If it was say, 2%, that would still be pretty strong evidence in favor of an innate preference.

silly girl said...

Game may be an abuse of the natural order of male dominance, but there is nothing evil about male dominance. Chicks like it, which is why Game works. If some guy uses Game to abuse women, the problem is his abusiveness not the fact that women are attracted to normal displays of male dominance.

Audacious Epigone said...

OneSTDV,

Yes, that's the flip-side of the equation. But it insinuates that female mechanisms to determine mating value that have been honed for millions of years by evolutionary and sexual selection pressures do a pretty crappy job of doing what they're supposed to do. That is, reading Mystery trumps evolution. The same tricks should conceivably work in male-vs-male status competitions, but there's no way Game tactics work against other men (except for maybe against the meekest of them), where bluffs are almost always going to be called.

So much hogwash rests on the presumption that with a little training (or, more approvingly, "education"), people are able to overcome human nature, environmental influences, cultural constructs, etc. I don't think Game is hogwash, just oversold (and not the optimal way of selling people on HBD).

BGC and silly girl,

Using Game terms, what is the genesis for the seeming disdain self-proclaimed alphas (and also betas who have adopted Game tactics) have for herb betas? Isn't increasing Game just going to have a cannibalizing effect on its current practitioners? It's like an emperor hating his eunuchs because they don't enjoy the sex that he does. (I'm directing that not just at Dr. Charlton and SG, but towards everyone).

Jokah,

I'm confident in assuming it is something less than 8%. No question height is a desirable trait, and women tend to shy away from men who are shorter than they are. But because it would be so infrequent even if OneSTDV was incorrect (which he is not), I don't think it's a very compelling example to use in casual conversation.

Anonymous said...

the availability of women for sex being a fixed quantity

By no means is that necessarily the case. If every man in America started limp-wristing it tomorrow, the total amount of eros in American women would decline.

The thing is, they have in fact sort of started limp-wristing it, on account of "postmodernist," if you will, indoctrination. If they all start gaming it, the total eros goes up.

ironrailsironweights said...

It's not just that women prefer men who are taller than themselves, which as you point out would happen naturally most of the time, but that they often (at least in online personals ads) express a minimum acceptable height for men. In many cases this minimum height is quite a bit taller than the women themselves. A man who is, say, 5'6" will be unacceptably short for many women even though he's actually taller than them.


Peter

bbartlog said...

As Peter points out, there is plenty of evidence for female preference for tall men, beyond just the fact that women are normally married to taller men. An interesting group in this regard are the Amish; there seems to be some inbreeding at work among them that makes many of the men, but not the women, pretty damned short. Touch and go whether the men in that population are actually taller than the women, IMO.

Re Game:
'it insinuates that female mechanisms to determine mating value that have been honed for millions of years by evolutionary and sexual selection pressures do a pretty crappy job of doing what they're supposed to do.'
Eh, I don't really think so. Reverse genders: suppose a woman uses some deliberately cultivated skills of attraction (sexy dress, provocative dancing, makeup, sultry looks or whatever you like) to attract a man. Does this mean there's some terrible failure of the man's biological programming? Seems a stretch. Of course you're right that the signals of value sent by game are fake, but even the ability to send fake signals is something of a virtue. Anyway, the demographic data suggests that however much fun the alphas and Gamesters of the world are having, the genetic future is still overwhelmingly beta.

Audacious Epigone said...

Peter,

Right, the attraction to taller men is unquestionably there. How to use it polemically in casual conversation is another matter. As far as HBD introductions go, I think sports are the best way to go.

bbartlog,

Female skills of attraction aren't that powerful, though. It helps a bit, potentially moving a woman up a point or two (and, like Game, it helps the lower down someone is to begin with). There are a large number of girls in their late teens and early twenties who couldn't look anything but smoking hot if they tried. In contrast, the bottom 80% or so of the female population couldn't compete with them no matter how much makeup they applied or gyrating they displayed.

Anonymous said...

bcg,

Well put, sir.

Jim said...

I don't think "your husband\boyfriend is taller" was OneSTDVs point. If i remember the his post -- and i think i do -- it was asking the woman if it was acceptable for her if her guy was shorter.

Well ... no it's not.

Well why not?

Anonymous said...

I wonder how closely women pair up with men by percentile. I am 50th %ile for height, 5'5". My husband is 25th %ile, 5'8". However, he is still almost three inches taller.

So, how reasonable are women's expectations based on their own height percentile?

By definition, there are about as many men as women at each height percentile.

Height was never super important to me, but there are hardly any men my height or shorter. So, it was sort of a non-issue.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Perhaps Game will change it (although virtually all the empirical evidence either points in the other direction or no direction at all), but over the last two decades, the story has been a decline in promiscuity.