Cool. As a 5'4 turbomanlet, I'm extremely justified in my perception that I'm at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage, and the blackpill is truer than anything. I've literally always been correct that I'm playing life on legendary mode.
Of course, it could be that shorter people have to “settle” more, even if they are still partnering up at similar rates. But the data fully debunk the “game over” hypothesis.
which ideally should be a foot in the door of realizing "oh wait, it's dumb as hell to fully internalize the most cartoonish middle school looksism narrative, and actually what I want is to find someone I enjoy being with." Shockingly, there are many beautiful and pleasant women who are short autists.
Something about the data here is off. Firstly, your old sources about frequency of sex and height are quite old. (Using 20+ year old data, come on…) Second, you’ve said no one uses apps over and over but your sources don’t say that… And anyone who lives in a major city like SF or NYC will tell you the main way single people are meeting is through apps.
Just feels like dishonest argumentation at this point. Why are you always ignoring the age (and quality tbh) of your sources data and then the actual data they do have which shows something contradicting what you’re saying!
Insane. This dude just posts stuff like, “oh it’s all just your personality (unmeasurable, unverifiable!!) - literally nothing about physical appearance matters at all!!” Anyone can see that’s obviously not true. Delusional.
I’m Gen X, so I grew up before all the Internet hype about height. I’m 6‘4“, and because I was always tallest in my class, I had no idea that not being tall meant anything. It was just part of who I was.
I was always pretty confident, but I don’t think it was from the height. Mostly it was because I was bullied by my polar bear older brother and occasionally boys several grades higher than me who were bigger because they were older.
The confidence came when I took a couple years of martial arts, dedicated to learning how to kill somebody bigger than me. People my own size didn’t frighten me at all. Luckily, evil stepdad entered the picture for a brief time and my brother and I became friends so I didn’t have to kill him. The single biggest confidence builder was the martial arts. I would recommend it for any man of any height or any disposition. It is a great confidence builder.
My experience is that women overwhelmingly prefer not to be taller than their man, but are not very picky beyond that. This does mean shorter men have fewer options, but on the other hand short women aren't rare, and aren't generally less attractive than tall women.
My guess would be that shorter men accurately internalise their disadvantage and mostly focus on the women who are likely to be interested, therefore ending up partnered at a similar rate. They might also lower their standards, but the short guys I've known have had decently attractive partners.
To the extent that being short is unattractive, it is because it signals being weak, and that can be made up for by being physically strong and displaying willingness to use force if need be (which I'm guessing shorter men realise, hence the existence of the "Napoleon complex").
You already said that your definition of attraction is women approaching you and sleeping with you quickly. That's a very uncommon behavior for both men and women, but much less common in women due to lower sociosexuality.
No amount of data on men's sexual partners is going to satisfy you.
No it's not, if a woman doesn't approach you then she's not attracted to you, same as if she doesn't message you first on an app. "If she wanted to, she would."
So do you genuinely think that a woman wanting to go on a date or get to know you first means that she's still attracted? No, it doesn't. She just doesn't see you as a Chad. That's why men shouldn't approach women because women consider men who make the first move as desperate and women would approach you if they found you attractive.
If one team gets the first draft pick and another team gets the last draft pick, should the main takeaway be "look everyone got a draft pick, that's all that really matters, nothing else to see here!"?
Given that the sex ratio is roughly 50:50 and that most people want to find a partner, of course this data is not surprising. Sure, shorter men can find partners, but how often are they being settled for only after the tall men have already been taken?
if you've shifted the goal posts all the way to "I won't ever have someone who wanted me as their literal first choice in life," the only response people can give you is to stop lying to yourself. having anxieties about not being desirable, or people not truly liking you for you, are totally normal. men also would like to be loved if they were a worm. but acting like those anxieties reflect reality, like anyone is not "settled for" in this sense, is the thing actually getting in your way.
How often are women with A cups being settled for only after the DDs aren't an option?
Of course height is a physical trait which is attractive and preferred, and all else equal women (and men) want the attractive traits if they can have them. That's just the reality. The draft analogy is fine, because no one was ever promised an equal even pick of all the people. Life isn't fair, but while this singular variable of attractiveness isn't nothing, it is not weighted nearly as heavily as many suggest.
So if the desire is "all men have an equal shot at the hottest women" then it's not happening. But if the desire is "most men can have a shot to pair up with someone" then yes, odds are good, and it doesn't mean settling for someone you're very unattracted to.
And some of us men could care less about cup size! If a bunch of these guys actually knew and talked to some women, they'd realize that's true of many women as well. Not all women concentrate on only the facile. It does make me wonder how many of the guys on here are on the spectrum or lack any basic social skills . . .
Autism explains the vast majority of neuroses and failures in the blackpill community. Theory of mind is very poor for those guys, NP wrote about the "autism pill" last year. Women are much more likely to forgive appearance and height than they are to forgive sperginess. Especially aggressive and resentful sperginess.
Too much focus on appearance (lots of which is immutable) when there is more juice to be squeezed in improving social skills (which are moldable for all but the most severe autists). But before anything most need an outlook and attitude adjustment.
It also has to be noted that non-autistic members of the BP community report anxiety/anxiety based conditions and depression. Both things tend to be present in people with high neuroticism, and neuroticism in men tend to be negatively correlated with dating success and friendships. Some studies have surveyed incels on personality traits and they present high neuroticism, low agreeableness and low extraversion.
It's not the same. I know that it's often claimed that women are more variable in their attraction but in reality what we see is that, for example, many men actively prefer small breasts, or fat women (BBW), etc. No woman 'prefers' a short bald guy, or whatever. It isn't a thing. Or it's unbelievably, vanishingly rare. So, a woman having a small cup size will easily find a sizable niche of men who prefer that.
It's often claimed because it appears to be true (women are scattershot in their ratings of attractiveness of, e.g., Gigachad). Ask 5 women what they think of Adam Driver and you'll get 6 answers.
And the whole point of these discussions, in teasing out the differences between men and women's preferences, is that physical isn't the be-all-end-all for women in the way it usually is for men. It may well be true that a guy is fat and short or whatever and that cuts against him objectively, but he can compensate by leading with wallet (not ideal) or personality, status, whatever. And more easily than a woman can do the same.
Blackpillers just don't believe that so fine. Men and women face different selection pressures, but women are more beholden to the physical, not less.
I understand that the data shows that but I suspect it reflects the pickiness of women, they're more likely to find men unattractive in general. Men are more tolerant, like they will be more accepting of a woman not being ideal, instead of just going 'ok now she's ugly since she's got small breasts'.
Do you deny my claim, that men are often actively interested specifically in obese women, or super tall women, or women with small breasts, etc., a huge variety in these fetishes... they seek these out, whereas you don't often see women go 'omg I'm sooo into want a bald or short guy, no tall guys please'? It's a pretty obvious and inescapable observation, isn't it? I'm not saying 'it's over' if you're these things btw. I'm just saying.
I don't really think a man can more easily lead with things than a woman, as men have lower standards and won't instantly cut off a woman for some minor slight. Though on paper men may care more about looks than women, the fact that women have all the power in selecting means that effectively there's still more pressure on men to conform in this area and others.
These articles always basically claim that whoever you are it's the same, like we live in some imaginary communist utopia or something, but I find it very hard to believe that looking like a male model is basically irrelevant to how easy it is to get laid.
I never said looks are irrelevant. I've acknowledged its role in all my comments. They're an objective boon and you're probably not going to get with the most attractive women unless you're rich, famous or good looking yourself. That's just true.
Lots of men may be willing to fuck anyone they can find, but do you think that's fulfilling for the women? That some guy is willing to fuck them because he has a "fetish"? Not to mention women aren't generally looking for long-term casual, and want to lock someone down. And the chubby chasers are unlikely to be the best pickings, if they're even interested in committing at all.
I don't know what I "often see," I'm going by data. Anecdotally I see women with worse looking male partners than I see the reverse.
This is a classic case of mapping male psychology ("I'm primarily concerned with readily available and variety sex with attractive women") onto women's preferences, which are generally for stability, personality traits and, yes, attractiveness if they can get it.
I think the clearest proof to my point is the fact that men threaten women with the "wall" and women make fun of "incels." Each is indicating what the selecting sex values most (men looks, women status), and needling insecurities (women are insecure about looking worse with age (because men want beauty), men are insecure about not being widely sexually appealing).
Women gatekeep sex but men gatekeep relationships. Each wants what the other controls and so healthy social and individual dynamics would result in a give and take. And always, attractiveness matters to a point (as a minimum hurdle which you have to "clear and beyond that you're carried by other traits.
Well the basic point was just that I don't think a small cup size is equivalent to height, because plenty of men prefer small cup sizes (or other things not stereotypically appealing to men), whereas women are quite uniform in wanting men to be taller than them. Their variation in preferences is like... specific facial features or whatever, stuff like that, but many of their preferences are quite fixed, and height is the most obvious one. I think if you're a woman you don't have to worry much because no matter your body, there will be tons of guys who actively prefer that. As a man, and you're 5'2 as this article shows, um... sorry bud. Or even if you're the average height, it is not a dealbreaker but it's still not good, there's no women who will specifically prefer that.
So I see it as an additional burden, to live up to these as well as having to factor in money, status, etc. which are increasingly difficult to live up to in a world where men are falling behind and women are gaining massively (going to university much more often than men, earning more than men in their 20s according to some studies, etc - increasingly hard to be impressive to women under such conditions).
You know this because . . . how? You know a lot of women and they have confided in you?
The truth is that there is a lot of variability in what different women like and value and generally to a greater degree than men, not as much the physical aspects. The truth is as Vu stated: men actually tend to care more about the physical aspects of women than women do the physical aspects of men.
I don't claim to have objective knowledge of this. But I'm sure, if you're honest, you've noticed it as well. You will see all the time guys who are specifically into unusually tall women or obese women or whatever, but I've never in my life seen a woman who says she specifically wants a man who is short or doesn't have hair or is obese or whatever.
It may be the case that men care more, but because women are the ones who select, it ends up being men who have more pressure to conform to their more narrow standards, in my view. Men generally can't afford to be as picky as 'I only want DD cups or you're no good' like women sometimes (not all the time - as this article points out - but it also shows examples of women literally saying '6 ft up only') can be.
There are women who just don't care that much about the appearance of a man and actually even a handful who go for men with looks most women don't go for. But in any case, if you look around in the real world, you'll see that men and women tend to match up on education, intelligence, looks, and physique (and many other qualities where they tend to be similar) but where the guy tends to get more slack on physical appearance. You just don't see many successful men with fat ugly women (Pierce Brosnan's wife isn't a looker now but she was, and props to them for being there for each other) while you do sometimes see some good looking women with guys who don't look near so great.
In any case, if you're a man, this should motivate you to be the best version of yourself you can be.
Idk you do see it a lot I think, billionaire wives often quite unimpressive looking, like the trope of rich dudes all marrying a 21 year old 10/10 waitress doesn't seem that true from what I've seen, as you say, they largely marry within their class and stuff, it's not men going after the hottest women possible all the time. I'm not convinced of many women not caring about appearance, and as dating apps become more popular and it becomes less acceptable to approach women, it doesn't look good to me.
I suppose it does motivate me, this blog is good and I'm more open minded than the people who respond with 'I'm only 6 ft 1 it's over' who are determined to be miserable. But gaining high status and stuff is very difficult as well.
Not that often, given that the effect of height on female mate choice in various scenarios always comes back explaining less than 5% variance.
More plausible is her settling for someone less handsome, though...because the effects of facial attractiveness are across the board stronger.
Most plausible is her settling for someone less muscular...because the effect of SHR/SWR has been shown to explain a lot of variance in ratings of male body attractiveness.
Being very short (5'10.5/179cm), I've never approached a woman as I've perceived this height to be a severe disadvantage due to their unreasonable standards. But this is an interesting article.
Not you. But not because of your height but because they don't tend to want to hang around losers. You do realize you could conceivably have female friends, yes?
Unfortunately, this data limits the conclusions to merely whether there has been a romantic match, not the quality of that match! Entirely likely that the latter is more strongly affected by height than the former.
The heightpill is one of the areas where blackpillers fail very hard. A cursory review of the memes circulating about it i.e. x% of women reject men under y height reveal gross misinterpretation of the sources they are pulled from. I have never seen a single study, in any context, show that height explains more than around 5% of variance in mate choice.
To me, this is consistent with a threshold effect. I'm certain that under a certain height the correlation is quite high. And after that almost nothing.
However most of the blackpill is fairly sensible about this. They agree that past 5'5 or so, a man can even be a "slayer" or "Chad" with a good face.
The nuancepill guy did mention it in his previous article but maybe he didn't look at it carefully or used chatgpt since his comment of "men who fell short of women’s stated height requirements only incurred a minor penalty when it came to actual choices" actually involves mostly men who are even taller than their preference and also their stated preference is already decently high.
This is one of the studies that is both misunderstood (used as a source for 65% of women reject a man below 170cm) and inaptly memed.
The study itself 1. Is from the Netherlands (so tallest people in the world) 2. The graph showing the odds of being selected show that WITHIN a woman's preferred height range the odds of being selected are a bit over 30% and largely do not change even over that range. Below that range by 2 inches, and it goes down to 25%. Below that range by 4+ inches and it drops to like 12%. 3. The r value for height in that study is the same as most every other study: less than 5% of variance explained. 4. You can just look at the lines in the table through the data points to see a clear threshold effect. Below the threshold the line tilts. Past the threshold its essentially flat.
#1 & #2 you should note what exactly is "within a woman's preferred height" here
> In contrast, women were more likely (844 of 2847; 29.65%) than men (623 out of 2601; 23.95%) to report a very high maximally preferred height (7 feet z 213 cm; c2 1 1⁄4 22:39, P < 0.0001).
> Men’s minimally preferred height difference was 0.021 (SD 1⁄4 6.65) cm (indicating that on average men prefer to be a minimum of 0.021 cm taller than a woman), whereas women indicated a significantly larger minimum height difference of 8.30
Internet says less than 1% are 7 feet in Nertherlands. ~1/3rd of women put closer to <1% as their max.
within/outside preferred stuff are not super interesting, the actual outcome and height is. the graph (b) at page 42 clearly presents what convinces me, is there anything misleading there?
#3 I'm retarded but my AI big sis told me to not stare at variance for too long for these sorts of things since:
"Selection processes often involve:
Exclusion (pass/fail)
Constraints (minimum requirements)
Flat reward zones
These create:
Large outcome changes for some cases
No changes for most cases
Variance averages this away.
For height:
Does little above threshold
Does a lot below threshold
Linear metrics smear these two regions together.
Evolutionary and behavioral selection often works by:
Removing unacceptable options
Not fine-ranking acceptable ones
That necessarily produces low global r."
#4 I didn't get the relevance and threshold for which metric? You'll have to mention the specific number/graph/table, can't follow. I hope not threshold for a match since that's men and women combined preference matching type thing, for our concern, the men receiving "yes" from women is what we should be looking at.
You can even note in graph B that at around 172cm, the data points abruptly jump to 30%.
Remember this is in the Netherlands, tha tallest country in the world. So a man at 165cm is the same as a white man in the US at 160cm. So being that short as we can see does produce an effect on his odds.
At around 5'8 in the Netherlands, the tall advantage mostly evaporates to nothing (a 6% increase in odds across 172-190+cm is nothing). And thats roughly the equivalent of 5'6 in America.
The Netherland thing again doesn't really matter since both genders are from same place.
And the specific thing of interest is if actual female preference in height(not their stated ideals but in actual selection setting with alternatives) here identified by "yes" or "no" in speed dating takes out most peer men or not.
From the page 42, figure 4 (b)
Tallest has highest "yes" from women, shortest have last "yes" from women and with more or less gradual increase in between. Sure there's a slight sharper jump between 170 to 175 but it doesn't show preference for taller is not higher.
Paper says "maximum desirability at 21.3 cm (95% CI 1⁄4 12.9e64.0) above average height", that's 8.38 inches and desirability defined as likilihood of receiving "yes"
So does actual female prefrence in world takes out most peer males on metrics of height where they have alternatives to pick from? yes.
The alternative part is important since a lot of dating happens cause guys almost always makes the move first and she went "I guess, why not.. no one better asking me out now" and they are married 2 years later or people who have been friends or people who are arrenged in other social setup. Why "actual outcome" tier studies and data is not very convincing against height blackpill. In context like speed dating where alternatives are avaible to pick from, true prefernce can be identified.
1. The Netherlands "thing" matters because the people both men and women are taller, meaning the heights at which you'd see similar effects are lower in the US.
2. The strength of the female preference past 172 cm is very weak. Jumping from 30%-36% over 20+cm of male height is a very weak effect.
3. If you look at table 3 (the table where they infer the maximum desirability) you can still see that the height difference itself has an extremely low slice of variance.
It's so funny. So many of these "refutations" are soundly defeated by simply LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS.
1. Figure 1 gives the preferred height ranges. That isn't the same as an x inches taller preference. They range from 170-185cm to like 180-195cm (tied directly to the woman's own height).
2. The within/preferred stuff is the crux of the study...as in, falling outside a woman's threshold height doesnt have much of an effect on a man's odds until you're like 3-4 inches below it.
Graph b literally shows a curve that provides further evidence of a threshold effect. A man at 165cm has 20% chance versus a man at 190 having a 36% chance and the actual odds past 177cm changing a few percentage points.
Figure 3 shows what I am talking about most clearly. Above a woman's ideal height range changes almost nothing. And being below it doesn't change anything much unless you are way below the range (roughly 5 inches).
3. Your next point is just essentially restating a threshold effect.
58% of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6 feet tall vs 14% of the general population. If earnings or general status map to height in this manner then simple ‘more money = more mates’ would suffice to move the needle.
>However most of the blackpill is fairly sensible about this. They agree that past 5'5 or so, a man can even be a "slayer" or "Chad" with a good face.
Comments on this article:
The Don: "Being very short (5'10.5/179cm), I've never approached a woman as I've perceived this height to be a severe disadvantage due to their unreasonable standards. But this is an interesting article."
Joseph: "same, at 6´1 I am still too short in europe, it´s over before it even began"
As far as I know, William Costello surveyed incels that participate/ed on .IS (UK/US sample), and incels as a group weren't significantly shorter than the average man (1-2cm of difference). That alone can tell us that men above the 5'5 threshold participate, and probably can claim safetly on incel spaces that their inceldom is caused for being 5'10 ft tall without being questioned or banned. That grievance doesn't seem to be reserved for 5'2 manlets; it is generalized.
I appreciate your openess to consider Nuance's analysis, but this portrayal of BPers being sensible people doesn't seem to match reality.
"It is important to note that as several studies show that this preference generally only modestly translate to actual pairings though (when not considering quality), so some argue the heightpill is generally exaggerated."
Taken from the source and it talking about their own community.
Well, the wiki seems to recognize that there's a general exaggeration in the community. Also, the same wiki, as you previously recognize, misquote height studies to argue most women reject men with a reasonable height.
The call for nuance (lol) doesn't seem to be generalized.
I surveyed 500 men about height a few weeks ago. Shorter men's dating confidence was dramatically lower. 46% of men under 5'7 said they were worse than average at dating, compared to the 25ish% of men who were at least 5'7. None of the other height brackets showed much of a difference. It was only guys who were 5'6 and shorter who felt like they were at a disadvantage.
When I asked them about their actual romantic success, the effect wasn't as dramatic. 55% of the shortest guys were romantically satisfied versus 66% of taller guys. Still a difference, but smaller.
Question: Are you mainly focused on myths/realities from the male attractiveness perspective, or would you consider investigating myths and truisms about women as well?
The heightfidence would be a specific confidence around dating and relative chances.
This article mentioned research that are looking at general confidence and things like "self-rated body attractiveness or comfort in a swimsuit". Confidence is not a context-less objectively masurable unit, sit the most confident wrestler infront of a piano for a contest among other professional pianist, the general confidence is no longer predictive.
For heightfidence, you'd need identical context experimental data involving dating/relative chance.
Cool. As a 5'4 turbomanlet, I'm extremely justified in my perception that I'm at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage, and the blackpill is truer than anything. I've literally always been correct that I'm playing life on legendary mode.
Interesting data!
Of course, it could be that shorter people have to “settle” more, even if they are still partnering up at similar rates. But the data fully debunk the “game over” hypothesis.
which ideally should be a foot in the door of realizing "oh wait, it's dumb as hell to fully internalize the most cartoonish middle school looksism narrative, and actually what I want is to find someone I enjoy being with." Shockingly, there are many beautiful and pleasant women who are short autists.
I basically see losers trying to justify their loserdom.
You're married...
Yes. Because I'm not a loser. The hilarious thing is that I'm probably the shortest guy here.
You can be a married loser. Marriage isn't good for men.
Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that. Look, I'm not the one who's insecure and unhappy on here . . .
I bet you think that women want to be approached and that men should approach them...
Something about the data here is off. Firstly, your old sources about frequency of sex and height are quite old. (Using 20+ year old data, come on…) Second, you’ve said no one uses apps over and over but your sources don’t say that… And anyone who lives in a major city like SF or NYC will tell you the main way single people are meeting is through apps.
Just feels like dishonest argumentation at this point. Why are you always ignoring the age (and quality tbh) of your sources data and then the actual data they do have which shows something contradicting what you’re saying!
Insane. This dude just posts stuff like, “oh it’s all just your personality (unmeasurable, unverifiable!!) - literally nothing about physical appearance matters at all!!” Anyone can see that’s obviously not true. Delusional.
The "but old data" retort has been addressed in previous articles. Both old and recent data show no strong correlation between body count and height.
Before accusing people of dishonesty, check the date of the data they are quoting.
And the "nothing about morphology matters at all" is peak strawmanning, this very article notices there's a small effect for significantly short men.
Where is the small effect? Are you saying you can determine the size of the effect from solely just the survey?
I could be misreading but I don’t think the survey by itself is enough to conclude it’s a small effect
I’m Gen X, so I grew up before all the Internet hype about height. I’m 6‘4“, and because I was always tallest in my class, I had no idea that not being tall meant anything. It was just part of who I was.
I was always pretty confident, but I don’t think it was from the height. Mostly it was because I was bullied by my polar bear older brother and occasionally boys several grades higher than me who were bigger because they were older.
The confidence came when I took a couple years of martial arts, dedicated to learning how to kill somebody bigger than me. People my own size didn’t frighten me at all. Luckily, evil stepdad entered the picture for a brief time and my brother and I became friends so I didn’t have to kill him. The single biggest confidence builder was the martial arts. I would recommend it for any man of any height or any disposition. It is a great confidence builder.
My experience is that women overwhelmingly prefer not to be taller than their man, but are not very picky beyond that. This does mean shorter men have fewer options, but on the other hand short women aren't rare, and aren't generally less attractive than tall women.
My guess would be that shorter men accurately internalise their disadvantage and mostly focus on the women who are likely to be interested, therefore ending up partnered at a similar rate. They might also lower their standards, but the short guys I've known have had decently attractive partners.
To the extent that being short is unattractive, it is because it signals being weak, and that can be made up for by being physically strong and displaying willingness to use force if need be (which I'm guessing shorter men realise, hence the existence of the "Napoleon complex").
They are very picky about height lmao
You already said that your definition of attraction is women approaching you and sleeping with you quickly. That's a very uncommon behavior for both men and women, but much less common in women due to lower sociosexuality.
No amount of data on men's sexual partners is going to satisfy you.
No it's not, if a woman doesn't approach you then she's not attracted to you, same as if she doesn't message you first on an app. "If she wanted to, she would."
So do you genuinely think that a woman wanting to go on a date or get to know you first means that she's still attracted? No, it doesn't. She just doesn't see you as a Chad. That's why men shouldn't approach women because women consider men who make the first move as desperate and women would approach you if they found you attractive.
If one team gets the first draft pick and another team gets the last draft pick, should the main takeaway be "look everyone got a draft pick, that's all that really matters, nothing else to see here!"?
Given that the sex ratio is roughly 50:50 and that most people want to find a partner, of course this data is not surprising. Sure, shorter men can find partners, but how often are they being settled for only after the tall men have already been taken?
if you've shifted the goal posts all the way to "I won't ever have someone who wanted me as their literal first choice in life," the only response people can give you is to stop lying to yourself. having anxieties about not being desirable, or people not truly liking you for you, are totally normal. men also would like to be loved if they were a worm. but acting like those anxieties reflect reality, like anyone is not "settled for" in this sense, is the thing actually getting in your way.
How often are women with A cups being settled for only after the DDs aren't an option?
Of course height is a physical trait which is attractive and preferred, and all else equal women (and men) want the attractive traits if they can have them. That's just the reality. The draft analogy is fine, because no one was ever promised an equal even pick of all the people. Life isn't fair, but while this singular variable of attractiveness isn't nothing, it is not weighted nearly as heavily as many suggest.
So if the desire is "all men have an equal shot at the hottest women" then it's not happening. But if the desire is "most men can have a shot to pair up with someone" then yes, odds are good, and it doesn't mean settling for someone you're very unattracted to.
And some of us men could care less about cup size! If a bunch of these guys actually knew and talked to some women, they'd realize that's true of many women as well. Not all women concentrate on only the facile. It does make me wonder how many of the guys on here are on the spectrum or lack any basic social skills . . .
Autism explains the vast majority of neuroses and failures in the blackpill community. Theory of mind is very poor for those guys, NP wrote about the "autism pill" last year. Women are much more likely to forgive appearance and height than they are to forgive sperginess. Especially aggressive and resentful sperginess.
Too much focus on appearance (lots of which is immutable) when there is more juice to be squeezed in improving social skills (which are moldable for all but the most severe autists). But before anything most need an outlook and attitude adjustment.
It also has to be noted that non-autistic members of the BP community report anxiety/anxiety based conditions and depression. Both things tend to be present in people with high neuroticism, and neuroticism in men tend to be negatively correlated with dating success and friendships. Some studies have surveyed incels on personality traits and they present high neuroticism, low agreeableness and low extraversion.
It's not the same. I know that it's often claimed that women are more variable in their attraction but in reality what we see is that, for example, many men actively prefer small breasts, or fat women (BBW), etc. No woman 'prefers' a short bald guy, or whatever. It isn't a thing. Or it's unbelievably, vanishingly rare. So, a woman having a small cup size will easily find a sizable niche of men who prefer that.
It's often claimed because it appears to be true (women are scattershot in their ratings of attractiveness of, e.g., Gigachad). Ask 5 women what they think of Adam Driver and you'll get 6 answers.
And the whole point of these discussions, in teasing out the differences between men and women's preferences, is that physical isn't the be-all-end-all for women in the way it usually is for men. It may well be true that a guy is fat and short or whatever and that cuts against him objectively, but he can compensate by leading with wallet (not ideal) or personality, status, whatever. And more easily than a woman can do the same.
Blackpillers just don't believe that so fine. Men and women face different selection pressures, but women are more beholden to the physical, not less.
I understand that the data shows that but I suspect it reflects the pickiness of women, they're more likely to find men unattractive in general. Men are more tolerant, like they will be more accepting of a woman not being ideal, instead of just going 'ok now she's ugly since she's got small breasts'.
Do you deny my claim, that men are often actively interested specifically in obese women, or super tall women, or women with small breasts, etc., a huge variety in these fetishes... they seek these out, whereas you don't often see women go 'omg I'm sooo into want a bald or short guy, no tall guys please'? It's a pretty obvious and inescapable observation, isn't it? I'm not saying 'it's over' if you're these things btw. I'm just saying.
I don't really think a man can more easily lead with things than a woman, as men have lower standards and won't instantly cut off a woman for some minor slight. Though on paper men may care more about looks than women, the fact that women have all the power in selecting means that effectively there's still more pressure on men to conform in this area and others.
These articles always basically claim that whoever you are it's the same, like we live in some imaginary communist utopia or something, but I find it very hard to believe that looking like a male model is basically irrelevant to how easy it is to get laid.
I never said looks are irrelevant. I've acknowledged its role in all my comments. They're an objective boon and you're probably not going to get with the most attractive women unless you're rich, famous or good looking yourself. That's just true.
Lots of men may be willing to fuck anyone they can find, but do you think that's fulfilling for the women? That some guy is willing to fuck them because he has a "fetish"? Not to mention women aren't generally looking for long-term casual, and want to lock someone down. And the chubby chasers are unlikely to be the best pickings, if they're even interested in committing at all.
I don't know what I "often see," I'm going by data. Anecdotally I see women with worse looking male partners than I see the reverse.
This is a classic case of mapping male psychology ("I'm primarily concerned with readily available and variety sex with attractive women") onto women's preferences, which are generally for stability, personality traits and, yes, attractiveness if they can get it.
I think the clearest proof to my point is the fact that men threaten women with the "wall" and women make fun of "incels." Each is indicating what the selecting sex values most (men looks, women status), and needling insecurities (women are insecure about looking worse with age (because men want beauty), men are insecure about not being widely sexually appealing).
Women gatekeep sex but men gatekeep relationships. Each wants what the other controls and so healthy social and individual dynamics would result in a give and take. And always, attractiveness matters to a point (as a minimum hurdle which you have to "clear and beyond that you're carried by other traits.
Well the basic point was just that I don't think a small cup size is equivalent to height, because plenty of men prefer small cup sizes (or other things not stereotypically appealing to men), whereas women are quite uniform in wanting men to be taller than them. Their variation in preferences is like... specific facial features or whatever, stuff like that, but many of their preferences are quite fixed, and height is the most obvious one. I think if you're a woman you don't have to worry much because no matter your body, there will be tons of guys who actively prefer that. As a man, and you're 5'2 as this article shows, um... sorry bud. Or even if you're the average height, it is not a dealbreaker but it's still not good, there's no women who will specifically prefer that.
So I see it as an additional burden, to live up to these as well as having to factor in money, status, etc. which are increasingly difficult to live up to in a world where men are falling behind and women are gaining massively (going to university much more often than men, earning more than men in their 20s according to some studies, etc - increasingly hard to be impressive to women under such conditions).
You know this because . . . how? You know a lot of women and they have confided in you?
The truth is that there is a lot of variability in what different women like and value and generally to a greater degree than men, not as much the physical aspects. The truth is as Vu stated: men actually tend to care more about the physical aspects of women than women do the physical aspects of men.
I don't claim to have objective knowledge of this. But I'm sure, if you're honest, you've noticed it as well. You will see all the time guys who are specifically into unusually tall women or obese women or whatever, but I've never in my life seen a woman who says she specifically wants a man who is short or doesn't have hair or is obese or whatever.
It may be the case that men care more, but because women are the ones who select, it ends up being men who have more pressure to conform to their more narrow standards, in my view. Men generally can't afford to be as picky as 'I only want DD cups or you're no good' like women sometimes (not all the time - as this article points out - but it also shows examples of women literally saying '6 ft up only') can be.
There are women who just don't care that much about the appearance of a man and actually even a handful who go for men with looks most women don't go for. But in any case, if you look around in the real world, you'll see that men and women tend to match up on education, intelligence, looks, and physique (and many other qualities where they tend to be similar) but where the guy tends to get more slack on physical appearance. You just don't see many successful men with fat ugly women (Pierce Brosnan's wife isn't a looker now but she was, and props to them for being there for each other) while you do sometimes see some good looking women with guys who don't look near so great.
In any case, if you're a man, this should motivate you to be the best version of yourself you can be.
Idk you do see it a lot I think, billionaire wives often quite unimpressive looking, like the trope of rich dudes all marrying a 21 year old 10/10 waitress doesn't seem that true from what I've seen, as you say, they largely marry within their class and stuff, it's not men going after the hottest women possible all the time. I'm not convinced of many women not caring about appearance, and as dating apps become more popular and it becomes less acceptable to approach women, it doesn't look good to me.
I suppose it does motivate me, this blog is good and I'm more open minded than the people who respond with 'I'm only 6 ft 1 it's over' who are determined to be miserable. But gaining high status and stuff is very difficult as well.
Not that often, given that the effect of height on female mate choice in various scenarios always comes back explaining less than 5% variance.
More plausible is her settling for someone less handsome, though...because the effects of facial attractiveness are across the board stronger.
Most plausible is her settling for someone less muscular...because the effect of SHR/SWR has been shown to explain a lot of variance in ratings of male body attractiveness.
Being very short (5'10.5/179cm), I've never approached a woman as I've perceived this height to be a severe disadvantage due to their unreasonable standards. But this is an interesting article.
same, at 6´1 I am still too short in europe, it´s over before it even began
Is this trolling or you are convinced of what you are saying?
In the eyes of many women that is short.
6´2 is minimum to be considered datable these days
6'9"
Probably.
But that's why men shouldn't approach women, as all it does is boost her ego and puts her on a pedestal.
Dude, it's not like you'd know, since you don't actually know any women (even as friends) or talk to them.
I bet you used to approach women like a loser LMAO.
If they're not approaching you then they're not attracted. "If she wanted to, she would."
What do women want then in your opinion?
Not you. But not because of your height but because they don't tend to want to hang around losers. You do realize you could conceivably have female friends, yes?
What do they offer me? If they talk about their dating struggles (i.e. Chad won't commit), why would I care? What do I get out of their friendship?
Women are incredibly shallow. If they don't approach you then they're not attracted
Unfortunately, this data limits the conclusions to merely whether there has been a romantic match, not the quality of that match! Entirely likely that the latter is more strongly affected by height than the former.
That aspect was explored in previous articles:
Height and relationship quality: https://nuancepill.substack.com/i/145462849/height-and-relationship-quality
Physical attractiveness and relationship quality: https://nuancepill.substack.com/i/147841942/assortative-mating-how-looksmatched-are-couples
The heightpill is one of the areas where blackpillers fail very hard. A cursory review of the memes circulating about it i.e. x% of women reject men under y height reveal gross misinterpretation of the sources they are pulled from. I have never seen a single study, in any context, show that height explains more than around 5% of variance in mate choice.
To me, this is consistent with a threshold effect. I'm certain that under a certain height the correlation is quite high. And after that almost nothing.
However most of the blackpill is fairly sensible about this. They agree that past 5'5 or so, a man can even be a "slayer" or "Chad" with a good face.
Regardless, good article 👏
Any take on this study? I find it convincing https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003347213001590
The nuancepill guy did mention it in his previous article but maybe he didn't look at it carefully or used chatgpt since his comment of "men who fell short of women’s stated height requirements only incurred a minor penalty when it came to actual choices" actually involves mostly men who are even taller than their preference and also their stated preference is already decently high.
This is one of the studies that is both misunderstood (used as a source for 65% of women reject a man below 170cm) and inaptly memed.
The study itself 1. Is from the Netherlands (so tallest people in the world) 2. The graph showing the odds of being selected show that WITHIN a woman's preferred height range the odds of being selected are a bit over 30% and largely do not change even over that range. Below that range by 2 inches, and it goes down to 25%. Below that range by 4+ inches and it drops to like 12%. 3. The r value for height in that study is the same as most every other study: less than 5% of variance explained. 4. You can just look at the lines in the table through the data points to see a clear threshold effect. Below the threshold the line tilts. Past the threshold its essentially flat.
#1 & #2 you should note what exactly is "within a woman's preferred height" here
> In contrast, women were more likely (844 of 2847; 29.65%) than men (623 out of 2601; 23.95%) to report a very high maximally preferred height (7 feet z 213 cm; c2 1 1⁄4 22:39, P < 0.0001).
> Men’s minimally preferred height difference was 0.021 (SD 1⁄4 6.65) cm (indicating that on average men prefer to be a minimum of 0.021 cm taller than a woman), whereas women indicated a significantly larger minimum height difference of 8.30
Internet says less than 1% are 7 feet in Nertherlands. ~1/3rd of women put closer to <1% as their max.
within/outside preferred stuff are not super interesting, the actual outcome and height is. the graph (b) at page 42 clearly presents what convinces me, is there anything misleading there?
#3 I'm retarded but my AI big sis told me to not stare at variance for too long for these sorts of things since:
"Selection processes often involve:
Exclusion (pass/fail)
Constraints (minimum requirements)
Flat reward zones
These create:
Large outcome changes for some cases
No changes for most cases
Variance averages this away.
For height:
Does little above threshold
Does a lot below threshold
Linear metrics smear these two regions together.
Evolutionary and behavioral selection often works by:
Removing unacceptable options
Not fine-ranking acceptable ones
That necessarily produces low global r."
#4 I didn't get the relevance and threshold for which metric? You'll have to mention the specific number/graph/table, can't follow. I hope not threshold for a match since that's men and women combined preference matching type thing, for our concern, the men receiving "yes" from women is what we should be looking at.
You can even note in graph B that at around 172cm, the data points abruptly jump to 30%.
Remember this is in the Netherlands, tha tallest country in the world. So a man at 165cm is the same as a white man in the US at 160cm. So being that short as we can see does produce an effect on his odds.
At around 5'8 in the Netherlands, the tall advantage mostly evaporates to nothing (a 6% increase in odds across 172-190+cm is nothing). And thats roughly the equivalent of 5'6 in America.
The Netherland thing again doesn't really matter since both genders are from same place.
And the specific thing of interest is if actual female preference in height(not their stated ideals but in actual selection setting with alternatives) here identified by "yes" or "no" in speed dating takes out most peer men or not.
From the page 42, figure 4 (b)
Tallest has highest "yes" from women, shortest have last "yes" from women and with more or less gradual increase in between. Sure there's a slight sharper jump between 170 to 175 but it doesn't show preference for taller is not higher.
Paper says "maximum desirability at 21.3 cm (95% CI 1⁄4 12.9e64.0) above average height", that's 8.38 inches and desirability defined as likilihood of receiving "yes"
So does actual female prefrence in world takes out most peer males on metrics of height where they have alternatives to pick from? yes.
The alternative part is important since a lot of dating happens cause guys almost always makes the move first and she went "I guess, why not.. no one better asking me out now" and they are married 2 years later or people who have been friends or people who are arrenged in other social setup. Why "actual outcome" tier studies and data is not very convincing against height blackpill. In context like speed dating where alternatives are avaible to pick from, true prefernce can be identified.
1. The Netherlands "thing" matters because the people both men and women are taller, meaning the heights at which you'd see similar effects are lower in the US.
2. The strength of the female preference past 172 cm is very weak. Jumping from 30%-36% over 20+cm of male height is a very weak effect.
3. If you look at table 3 (the table where they infer the maximum desirability) you can still see that the height difference itself has an extremely low slice of variance.
It's so funny. So many of these "refutations" are soundly defeated by simply LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS.
1. Figure 1 gives the preferred height ranges. That isn't the same as an x inches taller preference. They range from 170-185cm to like 180-195cm (tied directly to the woman's own height).
2. The within/preferred stuff is the crux of the study...as in, falling outside a woman's threshold height doesnt have much of an effect on a man's odds until you're like 3-4 inches below it.
Graph b literally shows a curve that provides further evidence of a threshold effect. A man at 165cm has 20% chance versus a man at 190 having a 36% chance and the actual odds past 177cm changing a few percentage points.
Figure 3 shows what I am talking about most clearly. Above a woman's ideal height range changes almost nothing. And being below it doesn't change anything much unless you are way below the range (roughly 5 inches).
3. Your next point is just essentially restating a threshold effect.
58% of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6 feet tall vs 14% of the general population. If earnings or general status map to height in this manner then simple ‘more money = more mates’ would suffice to move the needle.
>However most of the blackpill is fairly sensible about this. They agree that past 5'5 or so, a man can even be a "slayer" or "Chad" with a good face.
Comments on this article:
The Don: "Being very short (5'10.5/179cm), I've never approached a woman as I've perceived this height to be a severe disadvantage due to their unreasonable standards. But this is an interesting article."
Joseph: "same, at 6´1 I am still too short in europe, it´s over before it even began"
As far as I know, William Costello surveyed incels that participate/ed on .IS (UK/US sample), and incels as a group weren't significantly shorter than the average man (1-2cm of difference). That alone can tell us that men above the 5'5 threshold participate, and probably can claim safetly on incel spaces that their inceldom is caused for being 5'10 ft tall without being questioned or banned. That grievance doesn't seem to be reserved for 5'2 manlets; it is generalized.
I appreciate your openess to consider Nuance's analysis, but this portrayal of BPers being sensible people doesn't seem to match reality.
https://incels.wiki/w/Heightpill
"It is important to note that as several studies show that this preference generally only modestly translate to actual pairings though (when not considering quality), so some argue the heightpill is generally exaggerated."
Taken from the source and it talking about their own community.
Well, the wiki seems to recognize that there's a general exaggeration in the community. Also, the same wiki, as you previously recognize, misquote height studies to argue most women reject men with a reasonable height.
The call for nuance (lol) doesn't seem to be generalized.
Why why why don't you use the metric system like the rest of the world does?
I don’t know if I should respond to something this poorly considered and patronizing, so I won’t.
Wouldn't race be the ultimate immutable trait rather than height? From my understanding, women are less open to dating outside of their race than men.
Non-Linear Associations between Stature and Mate Choice Characteristics for American Men and their Spouses
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/2014_Stulp_et_al_AHJB_Nonlinear.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQ0NjilNKSAxUpM0QIHYvYNcIQFnoECEYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw36nnvkNmBKj931CbZOWUfV
Surprised you missed this one. It appears to show that there is a penalty with being short.
However figure 1 appears to show a good correlation between a man's own other mate value characteristics and his height.
I surveyed 500 men about height a few weeks ago. Shorter men's dating confidence was dramatically lower. 46% of men under 5'7 said they were worse than average at dating, compared to the 25ish% of men who were at least 5'7. None of the other height brackets showed much of a difference. It was only guys who were 5'6 and shorter who felt like they were at a disadvantage.
When I asked them about their actual romantic success, the effect wasn't as dramatic. 55% of the shortest guys were romantically satisfied versus 66% of taller guys. Still a difference, but smaller.
Question: Are you mainly focused on myths/realities from the male attractiveness perspective, or would you consider investigating myths and truisms about women as well?
The heightfidence would be a specific confidence around dating and relative chances.
This article mentioned research that are looking at general confidence and things like "self-rated body attractiveness or comfort in a swimsuit". Confidence is not a context-less objectively masurable unit, sit the most confident wrestler infront of a piano for a contest among other professional pianist, the general confidence is no longer predictive.
For heightfidence, you'd need identical context experimental data involving dating/relative chance.