[Soup] There's a reason I still prefer tall height

NewsPeppermint NewsPeppermint

Claims that challenge common beliefs are always interesting.

Even more so if there is a plausible basis for that claim.

But universal beliefs have become common for good reasons.

So usually a new claim gets a little attention and then disappears.

However, sometimes the boldness of the claim itself evokes freshness and when the evidence has its own validity, this claim survives in the free market of discourse and is talked about.

The New York Times Opinion column on the 1st, written by Mara Altman, the author of “Gross Anatomy,” which says that shorter heights are more advantageous these days, at least met these conditions.

It's very bold and somewhat plausible.

That's why I'm curious to see what fate this claim will face in the future.

He first talks about why people like being tall.

There is a very plausible evolutionary reason that is often said.

It is said that taller people were better at fighting and hunting, and thus had an advantage in survival, so they were preferred as members of the opposite sex and as companions.

As Altman says, fighting and hunting are little more than sports in most societies today.

So it can't be seen as an advantage for survival.

Rather, Altman also says that the large physique, which was an advantage during the war with other tribes with clubs and knives, has become a more disadvantageous trait in today's fight with guns and drones because it becomes a larger target that is easier to aim.

This part also makes sense.

And she adds a stronger rationale.

Studies show that shorter people live longer and are less likely to get cancer.

These are plausible too.

▶New York Times Column: Short stature is more advantageous today

Is being short good for the earth?

The next rationale is for today's most important topic: the environment.

Shorter people consume less food, which is better for the environment.

Hmm, weight seems to be a more closely related factor than height, and I'm a bit tilted because some of the bigger people are news, but it still seems to have some degree of correlation, so it's an acceptable argument.

And Altman cites research showing that short people try to overcome disadvantages in society by acquiring positive traits like a sense of humor.

This appears to be some kind of twisted handicap logic.

For example, looking at a peacock's colorful tail, it is the logic to assume that it can survive with such an uncomfortable tail must have other abilities.

However, this logic does not seem very convincing.

After all, if, as Altman puts it, someday short stature is preferred, and if this logic is correct, then tall people will develop positive traits (now largely lacking) such as a sense of humor.

In fact, one important aspect of this argument is mentioned by Altman jokingly in the middle of the article.

That means lowering the height condition of someone on a dating app is an act for the planet.

I've been looking at dating apps lately for a few reasons.

And I was surprised that they uniformly show the other person's photo, age, and height first.

That means that people attach great importance to height.

In fact, research in evolutionary psychology in particular shows that women's preference for tall men of the opposite sex is very strong worldwide.

Survival is not all good/disadvantage

Altman's column asks whether we can change our innate and instinctive preferences when there are logical reasons for doing so.

Soon, 'yes, I know you like tall guys.

But for these and such reasons, the truth is that liking a shorter person would be better for your life.'

Of course, I love this argument.

At least, if you are a human being with reason, you think that you should be able to lightly press your taste with rational judgment.

But I don't quite agree with Altman's other hope, that people will actually prefer shorter heights for the reasons mentioned above.

Above all, it seems that taller heights are favored today, and not just because they are better for survival.

The 2017 New York Times Book of the Year, “The Evolution of Beauty,” by Richard Frum, sheds new light on Darwinian sexual selection, once abandoned.

**If the 'Go to view' button is not pressed, copy and paste the address into the address bar.