95% of Tinder swipes by women are passes compared to 47% for men. Women tend to date up. Online dating apps are rigged for men. These apps are search engines optimized to match women with the top 5% of men. These apps are designed for women. Being average or even above average will almost never result in a date. Tinder was designed like a slot machine which will ruin your self-esteem from constant rejection but your hope of a large reward will keep you going for ages. You will have a much higher success rate as an average guy simply with a completely cold approach. That is how bad online dating is for men.
As an example, a slightly above average man who generates 16561 swipes on Tinder will generate 7666 likes and 8675 dislikes. Out of these there will be 290 matches and 7596 no-match. A rate of 2.5 matches per day and an overall 3.7% match rate. Out of 290 matches he will send 87 messages and receive 12. 191 matches will never result in a message. Of the 99 messages 31 will be left on read or never even opened the initial message, resulting in 68 conversations. 40 of these women ghosted him, and our subject gave up on 17 of them. Ultimately this resulted in getting 11 phone numbers. These 11 phone numbers in 4 months led to 3 dates and 8 gave up on texting, declined the dating offer, or our subject simply gave up on them. All 3 dates did not materialize into anything long term. It was a complete waste of time. Considering that online dating is the most common method used to find a date these days, the options are grim for men who are not in the top 5% of attractiveness if they use these online platforms.
When I see these numbers, I think: Why do guys bother with Tinder? Why would you give up ALL the alpha, and create 100x more work for yourself down the road, just to have a marginally easier starting experience?
Those numbers are so horrendous that you'd be better off going to a bar and hitting on every single woman. You could get shot down 50 times in a row, yet as long as you want to 3 bars in a week w/at least 20 approachable women each, you'd still have a date within a week, which is already 1/3 of the success the guy in your example had in a tiny fraction of the time.
And of course, bars are pretty much the bottom of the barrel, as unpleasant as it gets. This is hard mode. Try any other setting - a meetup, a birding club, whatever - and things will be easier.
The issue with real life is 'approach anxiety' and now that online dating has been out for a while - people are not as open to cold approaching as they used to be. The default has shifted. Further more, it's hard to tell if someone is single, or even open to dating - this leads to many more rejections.
The only good thing about online dating apps is the anonymous liking feature, you get match when you mutually like each other - so on paper there is less rejection. However as this thread states - it has other downfalls.
This issue really got to me few years ago and I set out to build an app that would allow you to have this anonymously liking but at events, bars etc
So it's hyper localised, you check-in to an event/bar and you see other singles that are there. If you match, you can then 'warm' approach them.
I always just saw this app as an ice breaker app - it was received well by my peers. Unfortunately due to flaky business partners and covid, i'm only now at a point where i'm ready to release. Pending Apple app store approval which has been an absolute pain.
It will be a slow roll out, initially in Bali, Indonesia. Pending response and funding.
You're treating it here like this is no issue, but do you actually know anyone that can take that many rejections in a row and not have it impact their mental state? Even if you know it's not a judgement on you etc. etc., it is hard for any human to continue in the face of so many rejections. It's not just about dating -- successful entrepreneurs are often those people that can take rejection after rejection and continue going. But it's very hard and very rare.
In general I am on the same side -- you can get much better success approaching in real life vs. on the apps. But what the apps abstract away is that rejection which you feel very intimately when in person.
Anecdotally, I spent a year on most of the online dating apps with the paid features. Even as a 6’1 guy with a good surfing photo, and some Europe (traveling) photos, it was still a waste of time, effort, and confidence for me. Eventually I met my now girlfriend through a trivia night meetup. No photos and we were all sitting down. Hopefully it lasts.
Maybe you should just make sure your profile is top 5%, and if you think you need a six-pack for that, you're wrong. Any average guy can make a Tinder profile that is interesting for women. Women prefer other things in their partner than men (men mainly focus on looks).
== Those numbers are so horrendous that you'd be better off going to a bar and hitting on every single woman. You could get shot down 50 times in a row, yet as long as you want to 3 bars in a week w/at least 20 approachable women each, you'd still have a date within a week, which is already 1/3 of the success the guy in your example had in a tiny fraction of the time.==
Treating relationships as an equation to be optimized might be the real hindrance.
>Considering that online dating is the most common method used to find a date these days, the options are grim for men who are not in the top 5% of attractiveness if they use these online platforms.
I'm in the top 5% of attractiveness IRL and tinder was bizarre to try and use. It was this weird self referential world where you needed a completely new set of skills to be noticed. I was reminded of trying to learn how to write an effective resume after university.
When I had a woman make my tinder profile attractive to other women I just deleted it: the type of woman who would find that appealing is not the type of woman I would find appealing.
You don't mention what is probably the biggest thing influencing all of the numbers you describe: What is the ratio of men to women on "dating" sites like Tinder? I don't actually know myself but I'd go out on a limb and guess _way_ more men than women.
Which means several things. As you say, for heterosexual individuals, it's much more difficult for a typical male to be matched with a typical female. It also means if you're a male looking for a long-term mate, then you'll do better with the old-fashioned approach of getting out and being social.
> All 3 dates did not materialize into anything long term.
As an outsider whose exposure to Tinder is largely hearsay, my understanding is that long-term relationships are not really the goal of most users on this particular app.
They're rigged for women. Even on the sites that claim to cater to women by forcing them to make first contact, they overwhelmingly use superficial low effort messages to unlock the other side and then proceed to reject 80% of the men they selected just like with regular sites.
> a slightly above average man who generates 16561 swipes on Tinder will generate 7666 likes and 8675 dislikes. Out of these there will be 290 matches and 7596 no-match. A rate of 2.5 matches per day and an overall 3.7% match rate.
I'm that guy (6.5/10). I've never done numbers close to that bad. I could understand if someone was trying to date out of their socio-economic and age ranges (although you can always date up in age, for men).
In southern california, more like 200 swipes, 2 conversations, 1 date. Out of 5 dates, at least 1 overnight.
I don't think I'm in the top 5% of attractiveness, but I didn't have much trouble getting dates with quality people on bumble. Met someone and it's been going strong for 2+ years.
Tinder, however, was a total wasteland. Zero responses to anything. I think it just wasn't my scene.
Honestly it's more the "5% that make an effort to have decent colorful and well shot photos, ok bio and and look vaguely manly" instead of the 95% who either take a crappy selfie or either look like or speak like they are coming out of a trailer park.
I have a friend who ABSOLUTELY do not fit the stereotype of attractive men (1.70m / software engineer and he does climbing but with a small belly) and he f** like 60 girls in 8 months when he discovered the tinder magic.
I've done my time too, but at a lower scale, but since I'm slightly attractive that would not make my point. In general the biggest fuckboys Ive met were really not considered nice looking at best.
Women tend to date up is somewhat similar to how fertilisation of egg is selective with the millions of sperms wanting to fertilise it.
When there is a disproportionate number of males competing for chance at mating, females become very selective. I guess the apps are just going with the data.
Nice statistics. I found my wife on Tinder, and I'm by all means no top 5%. Actually that depends on how you count it of course. Women don't prefer men with 6-packs, if you haven't figured that out already.
My wife works as a dating coach, with both men and women. Men are very reluctant to listen or even try the advice, so I'm not going to try to convince you guys that you can make it work. It's not that hard actually, but most men already made up their mind on the whole dating thing. I'm sure there's plenty of "experts" here that can tell you all about how it can never work.
Honestly I'm getting worried about the future of the existence of the human race at this point.
If women would rather remain single than setting for a partner who doesn't match all their expectations and they set their expectations unreasonably high and online dating only benefits the top 5% of men and all real life venues of approach close for various reasons.... what are the bottom 90% of men going to do in the future? Is sex going to become a privilege reserved for only the most elite men? If the majority of men cannot enjoy intimacy, expect incel terrorism to increase exponentially.
> Is sex going to become a privilege reserved for only the most elite men? If the majority of men cannot enjoy intimacy, expect incel terrorism to increase exponentially.
Sex is unconditionally a privilege as long as we believe in consent. It is the prerogative of anyone who owns their own body to decide whether or not to give themselves to anyone. That includes the prerogative of holding out only for metaphorical Brad Pitt.
I'm not sure "but the incels engage in terrorism" is going to persuade women to give their bodies to the men they don't want.
Maybe we're just heading toward single motherhood with fewer but more prolific fathers which I think happened before. As a man without children relying on government assistance, the real issue is this arrangement these days tends to rely on welfare and therefore higher taxes for me who has no stake in it.
Equilibrium will be restored after the members of the generation whose minds were poisoned and did not successfully reproduce do in fact die off (with their ideas). This is the process of evolution.
I think the taste of men in women is very predictable. We're all focussed on the same 5%.
With women, it's different. Each individual woman has a different taste. Some like men with beards, others hate them. Some like tattoos, others hate them. Some like them more chubby, some skinny. Some like a funny guy, some a serious one that doesn't act childish.
If you don't believe me, play a game with a women where you try to guess which guys she finds attractive. Very hard. With guys, that game is easy.
- before, religion and morals were preventing sleeping around, which was effectively doing "sexual socialism" for the "poor" of the sexual market. this led to everyone having 1 partner as a pareto optimum. (even if in many cases paople were sleeping out of marriage)
- with sexual liberation (both of men and women), top performers get all the spoils, as it is with monopoly and businesses, and the lower perfomer gets... what's left.
Conclusion : be a top performer. Equality is always only a social construct
There is a very interesting study that analyzed men and women height preference using a large speed-dating sample.
The results clearly showed that being taller increase men chances of getting a yes - no matter how tall you are, and no matter what the woman initially stated as their max ideal height!
Scroll through the charts below. The entire article is worth reading due to the solid methodology that removed most biases involved in these studies.
My favorite part (from a modern anthropological perspective) of this relationship is while there is a height/income relationship with men’s desirability, the amount of income a less attractive woman needs is an incredible multiple to be competitive with a more attractive woman. It speaks in market terms to the lizard brain of the species and what it values (not to mention that women primarily filter by physical attractiveness upfront when selecting but switch to warmth and other personality traits long term). It is the most raw, brutal marketplace experience imho.
Table 5.4 and 5.5 show that income is nearly a non-factor for men selecting women. It is not a differentiating variable that men factor in at all.
Whereas it is an easy lifehack for a less visually attractive man (5.4), or simply shorter man (5.5) to be selected by a woman, if they make more.
I don't get the impression anything has changed since that study in 2006. I don't even think the same study could be done now given how broken online dating services have become now.
A corollary of this, more related to this forum, is that this is a greater aspect of workplace gender and earning inequality than readjusting the workplace for women. Greater displacement of workers would occur if women were interested in having a lower earning man in subsidy, because many men would leave the workplace for that option. The option of unpaid household and emotional labor that is overrepresented by, and a predictable option for, women. The people interested in that role are probably a more even distribution across society.
> Here's how it works: The doctor breaks the patients' femurs, or thigh bones, and inserts metal nails into them that can be adjusted. The nails are extended a tiny bit every day for three months with a magnetic remote control, GQ reported.
What could possibly go wrong? /s
Genuinely curious: has someone here gone through the procedure and care to share your experience? I'd imagine the 3 months must be hell, but won't it keep hurting even after when walking, running, or doing sports?
This is a fairly common procedure for children with different length legs to fix a limping gait. My sister had it done back in 5th grade. She has additional health issues, but once the lengthening process was over, I don't recall her complaining about pain from it.
Interestingly, it’s a much less risky procedure on Children, because all the soft tissue around the bones will adjust much more easily than in adults (who routinely lose movement range with this procedure). However, it’s rarely done on non-adults except for medical reasons.
BusinessInsider is summarizing the https://www.gq.com/story/leg-lengthening article. I've read another first-person account of the procedure months ago, it's months of constant pain. As soon as you get used to the new millimeters there's the next procedure for the next millimeters. I wish I could find the older article, the guy said it was worth it but at the same time most of his close friends didn't even notice the height difference.
I haven't done this particular bone surgery, but I had my jaws broken and moved forward (sleep apnea) - not painful at all if you have a good surgeon. And in this case, they're moving it bit-by-bit over a long period of time.
I imagine some physical therapy and you're all good - the nerves can stretch just fine.
Plus, if you know the risks, and you want to be taller - go for it. One life, spend it how you wish.
From what I have read, the little by little movement is what makes it excruciating. With jaw surgery, you break it and put it into its final place while under anesthesia. Then the healing starts immediately. With leg lengthening, you are slowly moving a break and this shifting/stretching the nerves. Not to mention there are lots of risks. I say you've only got one life to live, don't risk spending the rest of it limping around in pain for up to 3 inches of height.
I once heard that if you walk into any Big Tech company and want to figure out who the manager is, just look for the tallest, best-dressed man and you'll be right 90% of the time. This is, of course, apocryphal but I imagine there's some truth to it.
This is life in general. There is an awful lot of privilege associated for completely arbitrary characteristics over which individuals have absolutely no control. Work, dating, whatever. This applies to both men and women
.
The article doesn't really go into why people are seeking this procedure. It would be illuminating to see quantitatve data on this. Is it because of dating opportunities? Work? Something else?
Hiring practices are notoriously superficial. Ageism, sexism, racism (eg [1]), etc. Often these things are masked as "culture fit". HR will put lots of processes in place ostensibly to counteract bias but the net effect is really to shield the company with plausible deniability when it comes to bias against protected classes from individual interviewers and hiring managers.
It would be interesting to see how height fits into this. Height seems to be a mixed blessing in acting, for example. There are certainly some very successful shorter actors (eg Tom Cruise is 5'7").
I imagine there is some of in software engineering too. Height goes to confidence and confidence will sway interviewers more than any technical competence will.
A few exceptional founders is not a representative sample set. A better example would be all of the department heads under them. Not to mention that Gates and Zuckerberg are not short.
Neither of them are short enough that I'd call them 'short'. Right around average height for all genders. A little below average for U.S. men, but in lots of other countries they'd be above average (racism is possibly an ingredient in this discrimination and subconscious bias enchilada)
I wish I were a couple of inches shorter. Hardly any super tall person lives over 100 years old yet many shorter ones do (even after correcting for the height distribution at birth). The heart has to work harder for tall people and eventually it requires maintenance or it fails. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1600586/
Huh? If you are short, then literally nothing else matters. Sure women take other (like social) cues to judge desirability, but short men are just not considered equal when it comes to physical attractiveness.
There's, as far as I know, no such analogous singular deal-breaker trait for women.
> but short men are just not considered equal when it comes to physical attractiveness.
Did a tall person write this? This is horse shit. If you're unfortunate enough to find yourself in a bubble where this fallacy actually applies, get out quickly. Or if this is you, and you're under average height, I'd legitimately suggest seeking counseling to try and overcome the short supply of confidence, perhaps discover the reason why you're projecting this onto yourself. There is an immense supply of people and an incredible variety of tastes.
I doubt how much of this is journalists fantasizing about tech workers salaries and what they could be doing with it. They might even have say 1 anecdotal evidence they can point but it translates to "male tech workers... "
"Male tech worker contemplates funny sounding surgery" sounds better than "Male tech worker buys fancy car, gets tired of it, wonders if working late hours was worth it."
Interesting how it is either the recipient or broader social/cultural attitudes which are blamed, depending on the demographic the recipient belongs to.
getting ripped takes time out of day and/or steroids, breaking your bones and 'automating' the bone lengthening with a remote control device is way more efficient. and they can still work on their sidehustles/startups.
"One software engineer told GQ he spent the first three months after his surgery alone in his apartment and ordered delivery food during that time to go from 5-foot-6 to 5-foot-9."
That does not sound easier than spending the same 3 months with ~4 hours of workouts a week (which is enough to get most untrained people into pretty solid shape lifting), never mind the other health benefits.
I don't really think efficiency is a particularly good argument here :P
Readit News
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32852962
As an example, a slightly above average man who generates 16561 swipes on Tinder will generate 7666 likes and 8675 dislikes. Out of these there will be 290 matches and 7596 no-match. A rate of 2.5 matches per day and an overall 3.7% match rate. Out of 290 matches he will send 87 messages and receive 12. 191 matches will never result in a message. Of the 99 messages 31 will be left on read or never even opened the initial message, resulting in 68 conversations. 40 of these women ghosted him, and our subject gave up on 17 of them. Ultimately this resulted in getting 11 phone numbers. These 11 phone numbers in 4 months led to 3 dates and 8 gave up on texting, declined the dating offer, or our subject simply gave up on them. All 3 dates did not materialize into anything long term. It was a complete waste of time. Considering that online dating is the most common method used to find a date these days, the options are grim for men who are not in the top 5% of attractiveness if they use these online platforms.
Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31823294
Those numbers are so horrendous that you'd be better off going to a bar and hitting on every single woman. You could get shot down 50 times in a row, yet as long as you want to 3 bars in a week w/at least 20 approachable women each, you'd still have a date within a week, which is already 1/3 of the success the guy in your example had in a tiny fraction of the time.
And of course, bars are pretty much the bottom of the barrel, as unpleasant as it gets. This is hard mode. Try any other setting - a meetup, a birding club, whatever - and things will be easier.
The only good thing about online dating apps is the anonymous liking feature, you get match when you mutually like each other - so on paper there is less rejection. However as this thread states - it has other downfalls.
This issue really got to me few years ago and I set out to build an app that would allow you to have this anonymously liking but at events, bars etc So it's hyper localised, you check-in to an event/bar and you see other singles that are there. If you match, you can then 'warm' approach them.
I always just saw this app as an ice breaker app - it was received well by my peers. Unfortunately due to flaky business partners and covid, i'm only now at a point where i'm ready to release. Pending Apple app store approval which has been an absolute pain.
It will be a slow roll out, initially in Bali, Indonesia. Pending response and funding.
if anyone is interested, its called SeeMe http://www.seemeapp.net/
You're treating it here like this is no issue, but do you actually know anyone that can take that many rejections in a row and not have it impact their mental state? Even if you know it's not a judgement on you etc. etc., it is hard for any human to continue in the face of so many rejections. It's not just about dating -- successful entrepreneurs are often those people that can take rejection after rejection and continue going. But it's very hard and very rare.
In general I am on the same side -- you can get much better success approaching in real life vs. on the apps. But what the apps abstract away is that rejection which you feel very intimately when in person.
Treating relationships as an equation to be optimized might be the real hindrance.
I'm in the top 5% of attractiveness IRL and tinder was bizarre to try and use. It was this weird self referential world where you needed a completely new set of skills to be noticed. I was reminded of trying to learn how to write an effective resume after university.
When I had a woman make my tinder profile attractive to other women I just deleted it: the type of woman who would find that appealing is not the type of woman I would find appealing.
Which means several things. As you say, for heterosexual individuals, it's much more difficult for a typical male to be matched with a typical female. It also means if you're a male looking for a long-term mate, then you'll do better with the old-fashioned approach of getting out and being social.
> All 3 dates did not materialize into anything long term.
As an outsider whose exposure to Tinder is largely hearsay, my understanding is that long-term relationships are not really the goal of most users on this particular app.
Deleted Comment
Of course it's still brutal. Good candidates get out of the pool quickly and so the remaining ones tend to have issues :/
They're rigged for women. Even on the sites that claim to cater to women by forcing them to make first contact, they overwhelmingly use superficial low effort messages to unlock the other side and then proceed to reject 80% of the men they selected just like with regular sites.
I'm that guy (6.5/10). I've never done numbers close to that bad. I could understand if someone was trying to date out of their socio-economic and age ranges (although you can always date up in age, for men).
In southern california, more like 200 swipes, 2 conversations, 1 date. Out of 5 dates, at least 1 overnight.
Tinder, however, was a total wasteland. Zero responses to anything. I think it just wasn't my scene.
I have a friend who ABSOLUTELY do not fit the stereotype of attractive men (1.70m / software engineer and he does climbing but with a small belly) and he f** like 60 girls in 8 months when he discovered the tinder magic.
I've done my time too, but at a lower scale, but since I'm slightly attractive that would not make my point. In general the biggest fuckboys Ive met were really not considered nice looking at best.
When there is a disproportionate number of males competing for chance at mating, females become very selective. I guess the apps are just going with the data.
Deleted Comment
My wife works as a dating coach, with both men and women. Men are very reluctant to listen or even try the advice, so I'm not going to try to convince you guys that you can make it work. It's not that hard actually, but most men already made up their mind on the whole dating thing. I'm sure there's plenty of "experts" here that can tell you all about how it can never work.
If women would rather remain single than setting for a partner who doesn't match all their expectations and they set their expectations unreasonably high and online dating only benefits the top 5% of men and all real life venues of approach close for various reasons.... what are the bottom 90% of men going to do in the future? Is sex going to become a privilege reserved for only the most elite men? If the majority of men cannot enjoy intimacy, expect incel terrorism to increase exponentially.
Sex is unconditionally a privilege as long as we believe in consent. It is the prerogative of anyone who owns their own body to decide whether or not to give themselves to anyone. That includes the prerogative of holding out only for metaphorical Brad Pitt.
I'm not sure "but the incels engage in terrorism" is going to persuade women to give their bodies to the men they don't want.
This is why Lori Gottlieb wrote Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. <https://smile.amazon.com/Marry-Him-Case-Settling-Enough-eboo...>
One can also see the relation to the message of Susan "the Princeton mom" Patton's Marry Smart. <https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/living/princeton-mom-book-mar...>.
Deleted Comment
With women, it's different. Each individual woman has a different taste. Some like men with beards, others hate them. Some like tattoos, others hate them. Some like them more chubby, some skinny. Some like a funny guy, some a serious one that doesn't act childish.
If you don't believe me, play a game with a women where you try to guess which guys she finds attractive. Very hard. With guys, that game is easy.
- before, religion and morals were preventing sleeping around, which was effectively doing "sexual socialism" for the "poor" of the sexual market. this led to everyone having 1 partner as a pareto optimum. (even if in many cases paople were sleeping out of marriage)
- with sexual liberation (both of men and women), top performers get all the spoils, as it is with monopoly and businesses, and the lower perfomer gets... what's left.
Conclusion : be a top performer. Equality is always only a social construct
Dead Comment
The results clearly showed that being taller increase men chances of getting a yes - no matter how tall you are, and no matter what the woman initially stated as their max ideal height!
Scroll through the charts below. The entire article is worth reading due to the solid methodology that removed most biases involved in these studies.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-effect-of-male-and-f...
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.61....
Whereas it is an easy lifehack for a less visually attractive man (5.4), or simply shorter man (5.5) to be selected by a woman, if they make more.
I don't get the impression anything has changed since that study in 2006. I don't even think the same study could be done now given how broken online dating services have become now.
A corollary of this, more related to this forum, is that this is a greater aspect of workplace gender and earning inequality than readjusting the workplace for women. Greater displacement of workers would occur if women were interested in having a lower earning man in subsidy, because many men would leave the workplace for that option. The option of unpaid household and emotional labor that is overrepresented by, and a predictable option for, women. The people interested in that role are probably a more even distribution across society.
I assume at 7 feet or so you start getting more yeses just because of the novelty.
What could possibly go wrong? /s
Genuinely curious: has someone here gone through the procedure and care to share your experience? I'd imagine the 3 months must be hell, but won't it keep hurting even after when walking, running, or doing sports?
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
https://www.youtube.com/c/Cyborg4Life
I imagine some physical therapy and you're all good - the nerves can stretch just fine.
Plus, if you know the risks, and you want to be taller - go for it. One life, spend it how you wish.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
This is life in general. There is an awful lot of privilege associated for completely arbitrary characteristics over which individuals have absolutely no control. Work, dating, whatever. This applies to both men and women . The article doesn't really go into why people are seeking this procedure. It would be illuminating to see quantitatve data on this. Is it because of dating opportunities? Work? Something else?
Hiring practices are notoriously superficial. Ageism, sexism, racism (eg [1]), etc. Often these things are masked as "culture fit". HR will put lots of processes in place ostensibly to counteract bias but the net effect is really to shield the company with plausible deniability when it comes to bias against protected classes from individual interviewers and hiring managers.
It would be interesting to see how height fits into this. Height seems to be a mixed blessing in acting, for example. There are certainly some very successful shorter actors (eg Tom Cruise is 5'7").
I imagine there is some of in software engineering too. Height goes to confidence and confidence will sway interviewers more than any technical competence will.
[1]: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discriminati...
Many legendary scenes in cinematic history has been filmed with actors standing on platforms.
I doubt we will see another lead “hero” actor of Tom Cruise’s height.
C-suite and owners is a much more mixed bag.
Buffet and Gates are both 5’ 10”.
(Musk is 6’ 1.5” which is hilarious as I’d have pegged him as shorter than Gates for some reason)
It is rare that being super tall - or super strong - provides a significant advantage. We have engineering for that.
But being slightly above average (like everyone thinks they are) can be handy enough for day-to-day without any real drawbacks.
Deleted Comment
I'm pretty short, but I'd much rather be 6'2" than 6'4".
I guess getting ripped is too mainstream in the bro-tech spheres.
There's, as far as I know, no such analogous singular deal-breaker trait for women.
Age.
Race and ethnicity in shambles.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
>There's, as far as I know, no such analogous singular deal-breaker trait for women.
Obesity, smell, creepiness, being disfigured, in a wheelchair.
Did a tall person write this? This is horse shit. If you're unfortunate enough to find yourself in a bubble where this fallacy actually applies, get out quickly. Or if this is you, and you're under average height, I'd legitimately suggest seeking counseling to try and overcome the short supply of confidence, perhaps discover the reason why you're projecting this onto yourself. There is an immense supply of people and an incredible variety of tastes.
That does not sound easier than spending the same 3 months with ~4 hours of workouts a week (which is enough to get most untrained people into pretty solid shape lifting), never mind the other health benefits.
I don't really think efficiency is a particularly good argument here :P