- #71
nismaratwork
- 359
- 0
drizzle said:No, they can cheat easily. You know, glancing from one paper to another.
Pfft... as if tall people would deign to cheat from short people!
drizzle said:No, they can cheat easily. You know, glancing from one paper to another.
nismaratwork said:Pfft... as if tall people would deign to cheat from short people!
drizzle said:Okay then, explain why do I note that tall people have a slight hunchbacked.
Well, if you attend college on a basketball scholarship, and if you need an edge...drizzle said:Okay then, explain why do I note that tall people have a slight hunchbacked.
nismaratwork said:إقرأ
That's good advice... so tall people just... يقرأون over more shoulders than most!
drizzle said:Correction's mine.
nismaratwork said:Eep, that'll show me for trying to be cute. Thanks for the quick lesson, I appreciate it!
Klockan3 said:...average happy people overestimate their length by 1 inch...
This isn't about you flexing your gunshipFlexGunship said:Firstly, I am not average. Secondly, I totally didn't overestimate, I swear... I measured. Thirdly, I wasn't fully "happy" (as you say) at the time... soooooo...
Klockan3 said:This isn't about you flexing your gunship
Klockan3 said:What is wrong with the people posting in this thread, why couldn't it be that tall people actually are better educated overall? What is so preposterous about that?[1] To me it seems to go well with the notion that taller people are overall treated more respectfully simply for being taller. In terms of education it would mean that you get a better response from your teachers and thus more likely to end up liking the subjects which in turn makes you prone to take your education further.
[2]
Right now you sound like the bunch of idiots[3] who thinks that commercials are a waste of money, stating things like "how many do you know anyone who bought something simply because of a commercial?".
A poll might not be the most exact way to measure things but polls are still very good as long as you take into account peoples tendencies to tamper with their answers.[4]For example, is there any reason to believe that on average happy people overestimate their length by 1 inch while unhappy people underestimates their height by the same amount?[5] You can likely find such tendencies, but that they would add up to over an inch is unlikely.
I read the entire thread and the most constructive I could find was things that could be summed up with "Why would education correlate with length?? Obviously dumb study".nismaratwork said:#1: The premise? Your delivery? The fact that we HAVE discussed that already...
Don't they get better grades and in larger numbers continue on to higher education? What more do you need? And obviously due to this poll I got more data to back my "theory" up than you got data to show that it isn't correlating. Public consensus do not mean anything at all, as far as this thread goes all data showed points towards this. If you disagree perform your own study to try to show that it isn't true.nismaratwork said:#2: On average girls are taller in the formative stages you describe, so they should be the primary benefactors of being tall in school. I don't see it. I think your premise is a sound logical construction that, like an elegantly wrong theory, has no physical reality.
It is great if you want a discussion, it is bad if you want to convince people. And frankly when people dismiss something just because it doesn't cater to what they feel is the truth without having any evidence at all to back them up then they are idiots. Of course you can't say anything for sure based on a one time poll but it says way more than anyones personal experience.nismaratwork said:#3: Way to win hearts and minds... I always like to lead with, "idiot" when I'm trying to have a discussion with others.
Science is there to find the truth, no questions are bad. Correlation between length and education level is interesting since it obviously goes against peoples intuition.nismaratwork said:It's on you to show how they ARE useful here, when compared to the views of others.
It is an important factor actually since you go by inches. 1 inch is fairly large so if you are in between two inches and have to round then you might round differently depending on how you feel.nismaratwork said:#5: Don't cross the streams! In much the same way that you've injected "length" for height, then transposed them later, you can't simply reverse the premise and suppose that happiness causes a psychosomatic delusion. If you're more of a math guy, think quaternions.
Just like everyone else in this thread you mean.nismaratwork said:Closing: Maybe if you construct a functional thesis, support it, and do so without calling anyone an idiot, you'll be practically acting 'all grown up..'.
Klockan3 said:I read the entire thread and the most constructive I could find was things that could be summed up with "Why would education correlate with length?? Obviously dumb study".
Don't they get better grades and in larger numbers continue on to higher education? What more do you need? And obviously due to this poll I got more data to back my "theory" up than you got data to show that it isn't correlating.
It is great if you want a discussion, it is bad if you want to convince people.
Science is there to find the truth, no questions are bad. Correlation between length and education level is interesting since it obviously goes against peoples intuition.
It is an important factor actually since you go by inches. 1 inch is fairly large so if you are in between two inches and have to round then you might round differently depending on how you feel.
Just like everyone else in this thread you mean.
Height and length are interchangeable when you talk about humans. If I am wrong then please enlighten me. Edit: Just because one is more common among laymen than the other do not mean that the other is wrong.nismaratwork said:You really don't get the whole, "length vs. height" issue... do you? Beyond that your responses have been so selective or obtuse as to be meaningless.
Klockan3 said:Height and length are interchangeable when you talk about humans. If I am wrong then please enlighten me. Edit: Just because one is more common among laymen than the other do not mean that the other is wrong.
Princtonedu said:Height:
•the vertical dimension of extension; distance from the base of something to the top
•acme: the highest level or degree attainable; the highest stage of development; "his landscapes were deemed the acme of beauty"; "the artist's gifts are at their acme"; "at the height of her career"; "the peak of perfection"; "summer was at its peak"; "... ...
•stature: (of a standing person) the distance from head to foot
•altitude: elevation especially above sea level or above the Earth's surface; "the altitude gave her a headache"
Princtonedu said:Length:
•the linear extent in space from one end to the other; the longest dimension of something that is fixed in place; "the length of the table was 5 feet"
•duration: continuance in time; "the ceremony was of short duration"; "he complained about the length of time required"
•the property of being the extent of something from beginning to end; "the editor limited the length of my article to 500 words"
•distance: size of the gap between two places; "the distance from New York to Chicago"; "he determined the length of the shortest line segment joining the two points"
•a section of something that is long and narrow; "a length of timber"; "a length of tubing"
Evo said:Must be true some economist at Princeton says so. He also says "income is the thing".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090729/us_time/08599191325600
I hate these articles that do not link to the "research" so we can judge just how well or poorly it was done.
DanP said:It;s a known psychological effect that ppl with some phenotypes (generally considered good looking, and height is a part of this) are perceived by others as more competent, more righteous and so on. As a result it wouldn't surprise me that the social perception of others on you will have such effects.
We are not born equal. This is the biggest lie told in the western world ever, which we should quit telling to our youth. Some of us are simply born with better phenotypes, and in better positioned social clans.
nismaratwork said:Is it more advantageous to be handsome, or tall? Presumably there's a range of height that people find pleasing, because I don't see someone of Posehn or O'Neill size being perceived as anything except unusually tall. If you fit into the most desirable height range, how do you compete with someone who's 2 inches shorter, but has a face that's considerably more handsome?
If you can't answer these questions (and no one can, yet at least) then I wouldn't be so sure how the average person's advantages and disadvantages stack up. In the end the BIGGEST advantage... the one that blows all of the others out of the water... is being born into a higher socio-economic class. What. A. Shock. Yep, turns out that if you're American-Samoan, but very wealthy, you're kids can overcome virtually all of the social obstacles that equally talented children of average-income families could. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but these snapshots don't exactly overwhelm me when other factors could be at play.
nismaratwork said:Beauty, height, youth, and potency... all of these are valued in today's man, right? Well, Hugh Hefner, who has none of those things (except the latter with chemical aid) is getting married to someone who could be his great-granddaughter. What stellar quality, other than having no internal voice that shrieks, "no!" and money does he have right now?
Who cares what these do in a vacuum: show me how they pan out in the real world vs. controls.
DanP said:They are additive. Every bit of advantage, no matter how small, is useful. Life is sometimes a game of beeing perceived better than somebody else with eve 1%, and zbang, you landed the job, or whatever else.
Looks , and biases regarding looks also play important rules in perception of others during jury deliberation, police investigations and so on.
Status. Competence in what he does. He built an empire. Questions as old as this world, simple answers. Those are all additive to his money.
nismaratwork said:Wow, you just dodged every question I asked you. Hugh Hefner... the aging skin-flick magnate who's company may have to sell off the mansion has STATUS?! I think you must have meant to say laughing-stock, because that's what the headlines are all about.
nismaratwork said:P.S. Jury Deliberation, really? So who convinces the jury: the handsome guy with a stutter and a 6th grade vocabulary, or the average guy with a smooth demeanor and a way with words? Again, I get that it's best to have everything going for you, but that's not that question.
Length refers to the longest dimension and on humans that would be "height". So technically it is more correct since it is a better defined word even though people in general don't use it. It is kinda like stating your mass instead of weight since technically it is mass we are talking about.nismaratwork said:No. No they're not. Length for instance specifically refers to linear measurements of fixed objects. Length is also a specific measurement of horses... from nose to tail. In every example I can find, length is NOT interchangeable with height.
An example:
Whereas the same cannot be said of
I've added the bold for emphasis. You can't claim some obscure usage among non "layman" (the laity of what, I don't know in General Discussion) and then hope that nobody calls you on it.
Klockan3 said:Also in my mother tongue (not English but related) we basically use the word length instead of height on people, height is only used for fixed objects like trees and houses. Which in turn means that even though I know that in English you usually use height I often write length, I wouldn't do that though if it wasn't for the fact that there is no reason why height would be a more appropriate word than length for measuring the longest distance from your heels to the top of your head.
Swedish. But it is the same with any Scandinavian language and in Germany at least.Char. Limit said:What IS your mother tongue anyway?
DanP said:He has. When one will build an empire as he did, one will also afford whatever headlines the newspapers and tabloids will make for you, and they will just result in more exposure for you. Untill then, one can claim Hefner has no status, but the reality is a bit different.
Do yourself a favor and read a book on psychology of judiciary processes. You will understand.
Klockan3 said:Length refers to the longest dimension and on humans that would be "height". So technically it is more correct since it is a better defined word even though people in general don't use it. It is kinda like stating your mass instead of weight since technically it is mass we are talking about.
Klockan3 said:Also in my mother tongue (not English but related)
Klockan3 said:...we basically use the word length instead of height on people, height is only used for fixed objects like trees and houses. Which in turn means that even though I know that in English you usually use height I often write length, I wouldn't do that though if it wasn't for the fact that there is no reason why height would be a more appropriate word than length for measuring the longest distance from your heels to the top of your head.
Klockan3 said:As for why height is a bad word look here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle
When it is on the ground its longest dimension is the one perpendicular to the ground so it is called height, once it reaches space you can't orient it like that so suddenly height becomes length... In the same way as soon as a human goes to sleep his height would plummet to a few decimeters while he would suddenly have a length while the length is not defined when he stands up... And how do you define the height of a baby, since he can't stand up is it from his palms to his shoulders?
Klockan3 said:And with laymen I mean people who don't use the definitions of the words but instead use the words based on their experience with them. For example mass and weight. Mass is the correct term but none uses that simply because the other is so well established. Now, even though it isn't really wrong to use the word height for measuring humans if you go by the definition neither is length.
Char. Limit said:In English, using the word "length" when referring to people... well... it's not really appropriate to talk about.
nismaratwork said:I admit, that's the first place my filthy little mind went. I thought perhaps it was another measurement for some that correlated to higher confidence. Maybe you walk into a bar and just announce that while you're only 3'11", you're hung like a bull-moose and it's just instant $$$ and ladies... Yeah, I said it.
Klockan3 said:I am sorry for going a bit off topic, I just like discussing things. I have roughly an infinite amount of patience so I can literary discuss things for a days. I just want to explain how/why/what etc to see what people think. Also I don't really see why anyone would think about penis size when they hear about someones length.
Char. Limit said:Obviously you don't live in America then. Because when I hear about someone's "length", that's the first thing I think of.
nismaratwork said:Wow, I'm a little astonished by your arrogance. You're entitled to your opinions, but they are just that... and your recommendation to me is simply an insult. Why bother to post here if you refuse to answer direct questions? Clearly you're a poseur with nothing to offer, who just wanted to bluster. Unless you care to go back to our first exchange and start answering questions then I'm done with you. You're so far beyond the original point about the relative advantages of various attributes that it would be funny if it weren't so annoying.
nismaratwork said:...that it would be funny if it weren't so annoying.