Sunday, May 28, 2017

GSS suggests conservative men are taller than liberals, moderates

Also about the strength issue: Jews do verbal combat. Jews often have paranoid fantasies/nightmares about burly goys ganging up on them. So even though Jews clearly have a status advantage in most times and places, this is rarely based on an intimidating physique. The inability of Jews to have literally greater stature than gentiles feeds into their nerdy Marxist tendencies which belie the actual privilege of Jews.

Regardless of a particular demo's political inclinations, one would expect that within that demo, the smaller someone is in literal and figurative stature, the more averse they will be to real conservatism.
In 2014 the GSS asked respondents how tall they were. Mean height for Jewish and Goy men (n = 15 and 555, respectively):


Mean height for liberal, moderate, and conservative men (n = 108, 215, and 111):


The sample sizes and differences are both small--exceedingly so in the case of Jews and non-Jews--so take this with a grain of salt. Since the numbers have been run, though, they may as well be shared.

For whatever it's worth, the 1.3 inch mean difference between liberal and conservative men is about 0.4 standard deviations, the equivalent of about 6 IQ points. Racial differences explain half the difference. Conservative white men have 0.7 inches on liberal white men.

And since we're looking at small sample sizes and modest differences, let's throw in average number of children by how GSS interviewers rated the attractiveness of female respondents in 2016 (n = 1,474):

Women's looksChildren

Plain janes are (barely) beating fuglies, so there's that, though there's no evidence from the survey that the country is getting any prettier.

GSS variables used: HEIGHT, SEX, RLOOKS(1-2)(3)(4-5), RELIG(1-2,4-9)(3), POLVIEWS(1-2)(4)(6-7)


IHTG said...

Last one is worthless unless you control for age.

Dan said...

IHTG -- You beat me to it. Most women go through at least a short period of full flower. Rare are the Melanias of the world that can keep that up for three decades or more.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Height isn't that much of a factor. Consider a lanky Jew going up against a meat and potatoes kind of goy whose wrists are as thick as the Jew's neck. The Jew can be taller than the goy but the goy is the more intimidating one.

Most women typically peak somewhere between 17 and 23. The less attractive they are, the shorter the period for sure. Sometimes it could have just been that one summer before senior year of high school where she was a lifeguard or a her first year of college while the effects of drinking sugary alcoholic drinks and getting 4-5 hours of sleep a night have yet to take their toll. If a woman takes care of herself, she can keep it going well past 23. Some women also have fortunate genetics where they can trash their bodies and not hit the wall until their late 20s.

Same goes for men. No excuse to have a beer gut when you're under 50.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, though it looks like the interviewers were instructed to try and take age into account. "Very attractive" has the youngest mean age for women, but "very unattractive" has the second youngest mean age. For those aged 30-60, it actually looks better:

Unattractive: 2.0
Normal: 2.2
Attractive: 2.2

Random Dude,

Right, height is an advantageous ceteris paribus, but all other things are rarely equal.

Feryl said...

Height and (healthy/lean) mass seem to be correlated fairly well. I'm no endocrinologist, but I do believe that growth hormones boost height, bone density, and muscle. And the tallest races like whites and blacks dominate mass and strength oriented sports (basketball, football, wrestling, bodybuilding/weightlifting, etc.) The skinniest people (like dot indians) tend to not to produce very many tall people either (obvious exception: certain East African tribes who need to shed heat quickly). Interestingly. Native Indians, especially on the Plains, had a rep. for being tall and tough, with some (famously, Jim Thorpe) becoming well-rounded successful athletes. It's neat that America's old school ethnic groups were all big and athletic. Bringing in tons of Middle-Earthers and Asians means that America's going to get a lot nerdier in the centuries to come.

As you guys note, there still are skinny tall guys and wide/strong short guys. Be that as it may, you mostly don't see extremes of either. Also, a 6 ft 3 guy with an average build, all else being equal, will typically not have much trouble besting a 5 ft 7 guy with an above average build. I think it's worth noting that in my experience, the shortest a successful heavy weight pro wrestler can be is 5 ft 10 and I can't imagine that real wrestlers in the higher weight classes are ever much shorter either. Below 5 ft 10, the physics of trying to grapple and handle someone of average to big size just don't work out.

Mike Tyson is 5 ft 10, and again, I'd like to know if any successful heavy weight boxer has ever been shorter. Caveat: many male athletes are sensitive about height listings, and I don't doubt that a lot of guys 5'8 or 5'9 lie. Mike Tyson famously "punched up" a lot, so perhaps he was shorter than his billing.

Perhaps men of below average height tend to also be deficient in bone/muscle mass, which would certainly make it that much harder for shorter men to succeed in strength based sports.

" The Jew can be taller than the goy but the goy is the more intimidating one."

There are always exceptions, but I can't recall ever seeing that many Jewish centers, power forwards, power pitchers, or quarterbacks. Given that QB is a brainy position, I'm actually mildly surprised that to my knowledge, there's never been a notable Jewish QB in D1 college football/the pros. But when one considers that on average, modern QB's are expected to be at least 6 ft 2 with at least an average build, it makes more sense. With some exceptions (like Bill Goldberg or Igor Olshansky), Jews just don't have size to cut it in the rugged sports.

Just 148 listed. Given that:

- Jews are successful, and a high IQ is associated with success in many fields.
- Jews love to brag about winning/being elite,

We ought see more Jewish ball players.
It's striking that even in the genteel sport of baseball, where good coordination can overcome athletic limitations, Jews are poorly represented.

Centuries of reserving farming, construction, and blacksmithing to the goys selected Ashk. Jews to have very little stoutness.

Feryl said...

More thoughts:

- Part of the nice Jewish boy schtick is based on the idea that gentiles are neanderthals who sometimes don't even look civilized or safe.
- Given how well-off Jews are, and the correlation with nutrition and size, Jews ought to be doing better than white goys in in the height department. In other words, how many inches would white goys have over Jews if you switched their socio-economic situation? At present, we see genetic programming limiting Jews and helping goys.

Do liberals get exposed to more germs from being raised in urban areas? GSS-wise, maybe we should look at how Res16 (or is it Reg 16?) affects height. Further, look at how these variables affect political orientation. Do conservatives raised in urban environments have equal or lower height than liberals who were raised in the sticks?

Check it out later, I guess. Gotta sleep......

Feryl said...

"Moderates", one surmises, don't feel a visceral "pull" regarding abortion, foreigner invasion, parasites gaming the system (the "profiling" racket, AA, gibs to those outside one's ethnic group in general). Thus, most moderates are probably are closet liberals who would rather not be associated with some of the worst liberal excesses. They might also be misanthropes/class clown types (e.g., Matt Stone/Trey Parker) who don't have the heart or conscience to throw their allegiance to either side.

Also, it's rather cheap (and to some degree, rewarding in a decadent period), to dwell on the excesses of either side without having empathy or understanding of what motivates either side. Come to think of it, the "centrist" approach that's been lionized for 25 years (fiscal conservative, social liberal), is effectively toxic to real Leftists and Rightists since there's something to alienate everyone. Libs don't get enough redistribution and intervention to feel better about improving fairness, while conservatives are denied cultural/ethnic continuity and order. Right, now, we're seeing the West desperately try to repel the Millennial spearheaded commie ideology reviva lthat's intended to stake the heart of Clintonian Leftism that celebrates Making It Big (in the wallet, at least).

Random Dude on the Internet said...

A lot of moderates I know are people who don't care about issues like abortion or Evangelical Christianity, which have been labeled by the media as far right issues for decades. That's why Trump did so well as he did: he was able to appeal to those who cared more about economics and immigration than whether prayer should be allowed back into schools again. They may have voted for Democrats because for a while they appeared to be the party that appealed to those issues more than the Republicans. Now that this is the inverse, this is why I think Republicans are going to be holding onto power for the next several years. Let the Democrats care about LGBTBBQWTF and open borders while the Republicans can handle everything else.

Feryl said...

Hostility to immigration doesn't neatly fit the conventional political axis that's been the norm for 30+ years. It exposes modern liberals as frauds (since high immigration levels dilute wages and worker morale) and makes cuckservatives look dumb (yes, immigrants "grow" the economy but they inflict serious wounds on cultural/ethnic stability which is harmful to the long-term prospects of the right).

Other issues that are partly or entirely economic can be difficult to grasp, in terms of evaluating who is affected and whether the effects are a net positive or negative. (like, do high taxes on rich people really drain the incentive to work hard and be creative, and do they end up subsidizing an increasingly indulgent and complacent lower/middle class?) Whereas with immigration, it's plain as day that it's used to for the financial and cultural enrichment of a smallish number of elites while the biggest costs are entirely borne by those lower on the totem pole (for example, companies with hundreds to thousands of employees can hire lawyers and train personnel to enforce AA and HR issues, so that the highest level of management and the biggest investors/stockholders benefit from a workplace incapable of being organized and strong due to divisions arising from so many ethnic groups and fearful immigrants).

It shouldn't be a shock that periods with high immigration populations also have extremely poor worker security and protections.

Even Bernie Sanders, before he was blackmailed by the DNC and before he was more in touch with SJWs (while Bernie's own power and following allow him to make the blackmailing mutual, witness how he still takes shots at the Dems for centrist cucking, knowing that the DLC wing can't afford to reject Sanders), said early in the last election campaign that companies abuse immigrants for cheap labor. He was taking the old-school Leftist tack of assuming that management is always cynically looking for ways to screw people over, not the Tom Hanks approved tack of celebrating superficial/trendy movements (like BLM or global warming hysteria) while sucking up to most elites.

Feryl said...

In the wake of the Manchester bombing, many people from different persuasions pointed out that the elites who say the most glib/blandly reassuring things in response to atrocities are seldom directly and personally affected. At least in comparison to those lower in status. I'm not sure how many modern liberals are willing to be seen as "anti-immigrant", but at least if we point out that elites unfairly use immigrants to game the system, than we actually are making a liberal appeal to reform our policies since liberals are supposed to be concerned about fairness. See also punishing companies and public officials for exploiting immigrants, rather than just arresting/deporting the immigrants themselves.

Since liberals don't care as much about order as conservatives do, HBD and national security arguments related to immigrants are never going to translate that well.

Feryl said...

' lot of moderates I know are people who don't care about issues like abortion or Evangelical Christianity, which have been labeled by the media as far right issues for decades. "

Pew (maybe Gallup too) says that around 1990 is when conservatives became much more passionate about fundie related issues. Yes, this zeal ran a lot of people off the reservation. Ned Flanders types became an embarrassment to less moralistic people, as did the increasingly cult-like mentality of the zealots. Take your kids out of school, be wary of your neighbors, Hollywood is trying to brainwash you (this attitude developed during a period, the 80's and early 90's, when virtually no characters were gay and fag/queer/homo insults were acceptable in mainstream scripts). Ironically, the over-zealous behavior actually might have driven other people to become more liberal since they were so annoyed by how preachy conservatives became in the late 80's and 90's.

Anyway, since liberals and moderates are nearly the same height, it tells me that moderates are closer to liberals in norms and personality than they are to conservatives (moderates probably don't care that much about order and lacking a strong sense of disgust). The lame thing is how in the 90's and 2000's, South Park Republicans were supposed to be conservatives who didn't mind the most decadent manifestations of cultural liberalism. Bullshit. A strong sense of disgust makes it hard tolerate that nonsense, if you don't have it, you ain't a conservative. For the record, Stone and Parker are miserable failures on issues that hit conservatives the hardest (like abortion, and maintaining cultural continuity)

Feryl said...

"On Friday, Krugman did it again, for perhaps the ten millionth time. For perhaps the twenty millionth time, he wrote a column accusing [white] West Virginians of being a gang of racists.

Krugman won't stop writing this column. Let's place this situation in context:

For several decades, Krugman has been the liberal world's most valuable player in the realm of policy discussion. In the realm of politics, he increasingly displays a tin ear and a "cold, cold heart."

This is from a liberal blog.

What we've seen with liberals in the Obama/post-Obama era is analogous to what happened to conservatives after Reagan. Paranoid purity tests end up becoming a means to shut more and more "normies" out of your sphere. Building a thicker and thicker wall and retreating further and further behind it, from which it becomes more difficult to be reached by the masses.

Audacious Epigone said...


Bringing in tons of Middle-Earthers and Asians means that America's going to get a lot nerdier in the centuries to come.

Or more slovenly and passive. East Asians are good at some niche sports like diving, figure skating, ping pong, gymnastics--mainly those that are individualistic rather than team-based, which is kind of funny given putative Eastern collectivism. (Non-African) Latin Americans aren't good at much of anything, and south Asians are terrible at everything. Skinny-fat south Asians are common and in my experience (lots of sports) I've never met a fast south Asian.

Great point re: Jews. Mean IQ scores for all professional NFL positions are higher than the racial distributions of said positions would indicate. Part of that is probably the general correlation between good health and IQ more generally, but that's not all of it, especially for offensive linemen and quarterbacks.

Sanders famously said that open borders was a Koch brothers position. It's his finest moment so far as I'm concerned.

It may be a little too cerebral, but I'd love to hear an aspiring populist politician really make use of the phrase "privatizing profits, socializing costs".

Feryl said...

Well, the left did give us that prior to the post 9/11 doubling down on globalism and the vast majority of mainstream figures on both the left and right going full cuck on every issue with economic populist implications.

It can be difficult to distinguish general/gradual trends from particular events changing stuff overnight. Methinks that Obama being vaulted into the White House (itself the product of cultMarxism and cuckery) minted an illusory aura of virtue and rectitude on the globalist/neo-liberal diversocracy. The feelz generated from shrieking about global warming, muh fags, muh profiling, and so on concealed the degree to which the professional left/cultural elite has become an exclusive arrogant club that's like a twisted funhouse mirror reflection of the 1980's yuppie phenomona, in which status was based on elevating oneself as high as possible via making more money and buying cool stuff. After the 80's ended, the cultural elite slowly transitioned away from merely having the physical and career markers of high status while to some degree defending normie values. By the time you get to Obama, cultural elites are openly despising trad Western Civ and those who made it possible. They're also swearing and shouting in public, and they're relentlessly vindictive to anyone who dares even suggest that their are drawbacks to going soft on crime, increasing immigration levels. deindustrialization, etc.

Funny thing is that at least in the 80's and 90's, Boomers and X-ers who hadn't made it could be resentful and jealous, but they mostly kept a low(ish) profile since they didn't feel like drawing attention to their lack of visible status symbols. These days, X-ers and especially Millennials have to a large degree abandoned the materialistic aspect of status. Good thing, right? Wrong. Since striving is now based on one's attitude and putative Good Works, the under 40 crowd is slathering on the activism and verbal signalling to a nauseating and really, quite dangerous degree. Anyone can do it, ya know, pretend to be an elite via one's sense that they know and feel things that lower life forms can't.

At least in the good ole yuppie days, strivers had to earn their way, be patient, sometimes get swatted back down by more talented people. And a lot of people just either didn't have the talent or inclination to Make It Big.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well put. There used to be a meritocratic element to who was able to pontificate morally. Now pontificating morally has *replaced* that meritocratic element. You don't have to have proven yourself or know anything to be one of the Good People--you just have to believe the correct things and rage against the wrong ones.

Feryl said...

There's a lesson hear. Don't fill people's heads with worthless garbage (everybody should go to college and be a professional/wannabe elite).

Surprise, surprise, surprise. We incentivize striving more, more people strive, and ultimately one has to push harder and harder to get ahead alongside countless others doing the same. Result? Tons of people who feel gypped and enraged, since there just aren't that many elite slots available and moreover, by default there's only so many people capable of filling those slots anyway.

Silents and Boomers (mostly) quietly accepted class/status divisions. A lot of X-ers showed a mixture of envy, sincere dissapproval, and to some extent utter apathy over a fair chunk of older generations being handsome rewarded for a yuppie mentality as X-ers struggled to reach the stages of adulthood/career progress that previous generations reached with ease.

Millennials are really taking a beating, as things that Boomers and even X-ers could be cavalier about now seem deadly serious. With the degradation of prole work, the massive influx of invaders over the last 25 years, and brainwashing about the necessity of accepting huge debt levels to get a degree, increasingly restive Millennials are finding it harder to focus on traditional measures of accomplishment (which seem so hard to attain). So many of their peers, and just as importantly, the generation above them, are struggling and have gotten so little in spite of so much effort.

And at least young adults in the 70's/80's/90's could blame their problems on a hedonistic and self-centered youth culture. Whereas Millennials (paging Howe/Strauss) were supposed to be rewarded for tidying up youth culture/behavior in spite of Boomers and X-ers setting a terrible example both as kids and even as adults.

A crisis tests the leadership abilities of various generations (in the Depression/WW2, it was primarily Missionaries and Losts) who have to marshall a young civic generation's energy towards an outcome agreeable to most. Now, it's Boomers and X-ers on the hot seat. And so far, it doesn't look good. A lot of older people are flat-out forsaking Millennials. Irony being that as youngsters, Boomers and X-ers frequently treated older generations with disdain. In a crisis era, older generations are supposed to cut the crap, leave behind whatever kind of ego or self-indulgence that plagued them and caused the crisis in the first place. Leadership (e.g., older generations) spectacularly failed during one crisis era, the Civil War era and it's aftermath. The odds say that shouldn't happen again. But it just might.

Feryl said...

I heard a late Boomer say that Millennials suck so much that they're not even getting laid as much as older people 9 (citing a study). Typical. On the same show, a caller (whose raspy voice suggested middle age) wondered about where the rebellious spirit of his generation's rock music went. These people refuse to grow up or play fair. Remember how back in the 80's and 90's, Boomers lectured X-ers over teen pregnancy? Now they're lecturing Millennials for not getting it on in the first place.

I've heard Adam Carolla talk about how, at some point in the 90's, middle-aged people stopped looking their age. Basically, when he was younger, middle aged and older people didn't try to be hip. They didn't live in the past either. Middle-aged Boomers and X-ers, on the other hand, often dress like they think they're still 13. One of the most underrated things about pre-90's culture is how older adults didn't look like buffoons back then. How can people who don't even put effort into looking decent expect to lead us anywhere?

BG said...

Hum, there a lot of studies who prove that there is a positive and linear correlation between women's physical attractiveness IN THEIR 20'S and their number of children in their 40's.
It is not being unattractive that lead to motherhood but exactly the reverse.
Women who doesn't have children care more of their physical appareance and they are less tired of life.
So the genetic predisposition to being attractive is positively selected by natural selection.
My english is bad, sorry.