Talk:Height and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the heck is this? The whole articles circumnavigates the Earth 20 times before it finds London. Either you assert something or you don't. All I ask for is: how do height and intelligence correllate? which studies present these results? and how were the studies conducted? Beyond that, any reasonable human may interpret the rest as his "intelligence" would allow.

What kind of nut would do a study comparing height and intelligence? If anything this article suggests that taller people have serious ego problems because they have conducted such studies. How would the sampling be done? How on earth to reach such a conclusion? This article is complete crap. I guarantee you I could do a study showing the exact opposite. In fact the island of Japan and Asia in general suggest the exact opposite conclusion.

This is like saying that Robert Wadlow was one of the smartest people in the world. I'm not saying he wasn't smart, but he's certainly not the smartest. It's also saying that professinal football players and basketball players are really, super smart. That's not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Luigi (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] heightism

I'm less than average height at 5' 5" and I'm in the top 10 in my class of 400 at one of the top high school's around. And I never study. Look at the asian kids at school, rarely are they taller than me and they're all smarter than me. There is no cause and effect relationship or even correlation between height and intelligence. -Just signing that this wasn't my text, what follows was.

This seems to be just outrageous stupid heightist declarations without a single piece of verificable evidence. The whole article needs a complete rewrite, deletion, or else to be extendedinto something more respectable, with head and toes. Herle King 13:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have you beat in a way. I'm 3' 6" and graduated magna cum laufde from my University. Although my University was not prodigious, I was also a 31 on the ACT (examination). Still I think this isn't entirely wrong. Many people are short because of poor nutrition or genetic conditions that negatively effect intelligence. My guess though would be that the "taller people average smarter" thing would plateau once you reach a height where nutrition or condition matter less. For example my guess is that people who are 6' 7" (201 cm) do not have higher average IQs than people who are 6' 1" (185 cm)--T. Anthony 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You're not just saying that because you're short, are you?  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JSC ltd (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
"outrageous stupid declarations without a single piece of verificable evidence" did you miss the peer reviewed papers in the relevant scientific journals, or do you not consider that verifiable evidence? Pete.Hurd 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If I put a "completely disputed" tag, it is because this is pseudo-science. "Intelligence", until now, is not possible to measure according to scientific standards, while height is easily measurable. When scientifics will agree on a common definition of intelligence, then find a fantastic way to measure it, then they might start considering carrying on tests evaluating intelligence. Right now, apart of IQ tests which only have credit in some very intelligent sectors of the United States society, but are not accepted in the rest of the world as legitimate measures of "intelligence", there are no way to measure it, much less to correlate it to height. Showing one's education (mind you, "education" is not a synonym of "intelligence") by the expression Correlation does not imply causation doesn't change the least the problem. Tazmaniacs 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see, when you mean "pseudoscience" you really mean, body of main-stream science that you don't agree with. As for "correlation doesn't imply causation", the science quoted in this article is really nowhere near that naive. Pete.Hurd 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You are saying that research published in journals such as Pediatics, Journal of Pediatrics, International Journal of Epidemiology and Genes Brain and Behavior is pseudoscience. This work is clearly in the mainstream of accepted science, and therefore I have to balance out your assertions against these journals. If it's so plainly clear that this work is deeply flawed, then I suggest you submit a refutation to a scientific journal, otherwise your assertions look a whole lot more like Original Research, and POV pushing than does this article. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does there need to be a common intelligence metric for it to be considered non-pseudoscientific? This would pretty much rule out any research where there is disagreement on the exact construction of a metric. I think I'll have to let Keith Poole know that he's been dabbling in pseudoscience for 20 years since his and Howard Rosenthal's NOMINATE set of ideology scores aren't universally accepted in legislative research. ~ trialsanderrors 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to be a list/brief description of articles with no particular direction/organization. There needs to be significant clarification and much more thorough discussion of the subject of the article instead of this mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemarshall04 (talk • contribs)

Ummm, there are adequate references in the first and third paragraphs to refute the criticism of a "totally disputed" template. Do you have references that refute the scientific research cited? Pete.Hurd 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering height as a means to determine intelligence is in the same line of phrenology, and this makes no sense if the target population for the research was small... And limited to any single country. Even a bunch of them. Check Japan and Asia in general, check if any concep of intelligence places them below poplations that tend to greater heights. And check "confounding". Herle King 04:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article must go.

There are tons of scientific papers concluding that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer and man does not cause climate change. There are countless scientific papers claiming that black people are inferior, Asian people are inferior, Jews are inferior etc. etc. The article Height and Intelligence may not be racist but it is its first cousin. It is insidious.

The science here or pseudo science as others have termed it is certainly not settled. It is not standard and it is not established. Wikipedia should not be denigrating the physical traits of different types of people. This particular article should be deleted, and the sooner the better.01001 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have studies that refute the results reported here, please present them. WilyD 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This is baloney! I neither have the time or the resources to look for counter-studies but you should, in keeping with WP:NPOV. The article is definitely missing the age factor. The positive correlation between height and intelligence maybe true for a teenager but I highly doubt the correlation stays positive for adults and older people. — Aksera 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If you'll read the sources, you'll see it's around 0.2 for adults, and larger in children. I've looked for studies on the issue in general, and no studies refute this observation, as far as I can see. I imagine that's because it's true - but who knows? The literature on the issue suggests that the general points made here are fairly uncontraversial. WilyD 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically we are relying on your rather biased interpretation of these articles until someone else actually goes to the medical library and studies this material. And even if by some miracle your interpretation is honest and correct that certainly does not mean the studies were done honestly or correctly. Why is this article still here? Something is really wrong here.01001 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No, wait. How do you tell a research is pseudo-science just by its topic? Do you mean you have faith that without scientific investigation, you should be able to know the truthfulness of a certain hypothesis? Can you say that tomatoes are blue before even seeing them? Or, as a better analogy, how do you conclude medicine is crap because it tastes bad? Are you trying to be scientific or not?
Moreover, why a research concerning physical traits must be "insidious"? In this case, it is possible that the results would have some medical significance - for example, leading us to a thought about the effect of height growth issues on IQ, and vice versa. It may or may not come out to have been a useful research, but we rarely know that before doing it and obtaining the results. Let the spirit of science be with you.
I shall add that, If indeed there is a non-trivial correlation between race and IQ, it must be addressed just for truth's sake. Whether it provokes stupid people's racism should not be a concern. We define racism partly as erroneously coupling personal traits with race. From "the mean IQ of Rereretardians is rather low", to "you are a Rereretardian, therefore you are stupid" is a very elementary logical fallacy anyway...129.67.38.26 (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis to advance a point of view

This article is a synthesis to advance a point of view and therefore violates the policy of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position

  • What point of view is that? What facts are synthesised? Which sections are offending? WilyD 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
let us start from the first sentence. How is this arrived at if not by synthesis?01001 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, it's cited from seven sources, which say this more or less directly. This morning I read source #5 - it really does say that. The others I haven't read, so I can't say. But the sentence just repeats what reliable sources tell us - it doesn't advance any position or reach any conclusion that isn't reached in the sources themselves. WilyD 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless you provide an actual complaint, editors will just read the article, realise that the tag is inappropriate, and remove it. Cheers, WilyD 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
These articles don't mention confounding factors? The first sentence of this article does not mention them, thus a synthesis to advance a position.01001 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the article is faithful to the sources, and fairly reasonable. If you feel that the article lacks a neutral point of view by omission, what is it omitting? Synthesis cannot really be achieved by omission. The studies do report a correlation between height and intelligence. WilyD 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


That's not synthesis by any meaning of the word to begin with. The lead sentence of an article is a summary of its content as a whole. Putting details such as individual confounding factors in the lead sentence would be absurd and in violation of WP:UNDUE. --tjstrf talk 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Confounding factors are at the very heart of the discussion here. Clearly there is a correlation since a baby is not as intelligent nor as tall as an adult. Also, if you have some horrible disease, granted your mind and height will likely be effected. Absent any confounding factors, it would be very odd for there to be any correlation. Why should there be? In fact purely from physics and mechanics, the taller person having his brain farther from the earth would clearly have the more vulnerable brain. Wont the higher object always hit the earth with more force than the lower object if either should be brought down?01001 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the cause of the correlation is uncertain, which the article makes pretty clear. I don't think intelligence causes height, or height causes intelligence - though I don't know. The data is definitely aged controlled - so on average smarter people of the same age are taller. Malnutrition leading to both shorter height and lower intelligence makes sense to me, but the "more strongly correlated when you" reference makes that seem sketchy to me - I really don't know why they're correlated. WilyD 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why do you take such an interest in this article? It seems to me that only some kind of nut would go to a medical library to do research on this particular Wikepedia article?01001 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR is on the interwebs. WilyD 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about Wily, but I'm here because you were raising irrational complaints on WT:NOR, so I figured the page could use extra eyes to make sure you weren't destroying it in the name of "The Truth". --tjstrf talk 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's probably where I first read about the article. It needs an overhaul for clarity, methinks, and I've been intending to get to that once I review some sources. Cheers, WilyD 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I smell a sockpuppet with Pete.hurd. Or are there two nuts going to medical libraries for this article?01001 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Now you're just trolling. --tjstrf talk 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that I'm not a sockpuppet of Pete.Hurd. You may not realise this, but I don't bother with the 5 minute walk to the closest medical library - I bring all the medical libraries of the world to me (they may be heavy, but it's easy). Generally, scientists want people to read their articles, so they do things like post them on the internet. I am one of the lucky few with internet access, so it's straightforward. Cheers, WilyD 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case the links should be posted.01001 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two concerns

I haven't read the above discussion but have two concerns with the article:

  1. Seven sources are used to support the statement that height and intelligence are correlates. However, 5 of these 7 (solely from reading their titles) appear to be about childhood development. Do these studies say if the correlation lasts into adulthood? Of the remaining 2, one relates to educational attainment (again related to childhood) and the other relates to 18-year-olds (at the edge of childhood).
  2. A correlation of 0.2 is considered negligible. (See here or here for rough guides on how to interpret correlation values.) This doesn't come out clearly enough in the article. It may be of interest to accademic - especially, it would seem, among those wanting to understand the effect nutrition has on intellectual development - but to a lay reader is would appear as if this is something that they should pay attention to. In fact, at 0.2, even if it does last into adulthood, it would be of no consequence what-so-ever.

--sony-youthpléigh 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Having read several of these papers yesterday, I'll note:
  1. The correlation of ~0.2 is a "typical adult" value, from what I gather. Childhood values seem to be stronger. Humphries et al. give 0.4 as the correlation in 11-12 year olds, for instance, which I believe is the highest the get for any group. Several studies relate it to things like salaries and workplace status - these studies are unlikely to be done on children.
  2. 0.2 isn't negligible - it's "small/very small" or "weak/very weak" - but the observed correlation is clearly not spurious. In my rewrite yesterday the adjectives "fairly small" and "weak" are used to describe the correlation - if these are too subtle, I wouldn't object to moving the "Weak but statistically significant" phrasing into the intro - people do seem to have a hard time reading this. The "small to negligible" ratings are correlations you present are for 0.01-0.2, 0.01 is "negligible", 0.2 is "weak" or "small" - maybe even "very weak" or "very small". There is a lay interest in the subject, as the studies that show taller people earn more are of some public interest, for example, and this seems to be a result of this correlation.
Anyways, I'm not sure what else to address. I do believe the article still needs more reqriting, I was just trying to work on the layout to make things clearer. Cheers, WilyD 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding some more clarifiers would be good. "Very weak", I'd be happy with (another source here), but would avoid using the word "significant" - how many people know the difference between a thing being "significant" and "statistically significant"? Saying that effect is strongest (but even then only touching the edges of what would be called a "moderate" correlation) at the burst of adolescence would be good, and understandable to people, as would saying how it reduces afterwards.
Take a look at the chart of scatter plots for various correlatoins. Look at the one for 0.32 (four down, three from left). Remember that 0.2 is even less strong than this. Then count how many people you know that are (actually) twice as tall as somebody else, then squish the graph down to represent scale difference in heights between people. Let's not oversell this. It may be useful to science, but it could easily be misread by many people as being something "real" is daily life.
Do any of the article comes with scatter plots. I think it would be a case of fair use to scan one in in this case. --sony-youthpléigh 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's already mentioned somewhere that your height when you're ~15 actually correlates better with your intelligence when your 30 than you height when you're 30 does.
I'm generally familiar with reading data, as someone who works in a (very different) observational field.
I'm very uncomfortable with not using proper terminology. Statistically significant is wikilinked for people who aren't familiar with the term, but we shouldn't dumb things down. Straightforward honesty is best accomplished with clear language.
I'll look for data/plots and see what I can do. Data is better, I can then make free plots. Cheers, WilyD 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Make plots - wow! that would be brilliant! Missed the part about height at 15. That's fine about sig. etc. --sony-youthpléigh 15:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If I can find the data - most of these samples look like they're probably too big. Is there an equivilent of the arXiv for these that might link to "extra web content" - papers from the 80s don't seem to keep data online. Seems unlikely. Papers have medians and standard deviations, so I could make "representative plots", but that's really dicey, and I'm not sure I'd be comfortable doing that. I'll keep looking. WilyD 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sony-youth, I don't know what the sources are for those web pages calling r=0.2 a negligible effect size. The standard interpretation for effect sizes of correlations is that given by Cohen (1988, 1992) 0.1=small, 0.3=medium, 0.5=large. If you want to read up on the topic some, you might want to consult wikipedia, there's a pretty good article on effect sizes, see effect size#Pearson r correlation in particular. I think the article would do well to present the r2 (% of variation explained) values and shy away from the "negligible/very small/small/medium" language entirely. WilyD, I'll look to see if there's a graphc/datasource that can be adapted, but I doubt it (I have piles of raw data on morphology (including stature) and assorted personality measures, but I don't do IQ). The raw data isn't usually presented as web supplements, and the raw height/score correlations won't be presented since the studies will have statistically controlled for the obvious confounds, and it's pretty tradiational to just present the ancova (or what have you) table since the intended audience finds that more informative than bivariate scatterplots of residuals (or whatever). Pete.Hurd 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I offered two example links. You might include them in the effect size article. Also, please do not include your own studies here, that would be WP:OR. Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources you provide which claim that effects of that size are negligible did not meet WP:RS, the ones I provide contradicting yours do meet WP:RS. I generally do not include my research on wikipedia, but when I have the research has been published in peer reviewed journals and is therefore not WP:OR. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Pete, I was just about to offer better. The one's above are for r not r2 (common mistake, don't worry about it). Cohen (1988) and Tallmadge (1977) list the effect size for r as follows:
0.33 or less = small
0.34 - 0.66 = moderate
0.67+ = large
According to Cohen, r below 0.2 is considered "trivial and of negligible practical purpose." Do not shy away from "'negligible/very small/small/medium' language". Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not an APA journal. Jargon counfounds rather than enlightens. If its good enough for Cohen, its good enough for us. --sony-youthpléigh 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
To quote Cohen: "there is a certain risk in inherent in offering conventional operational definitions for those terms for use in power analysis in as diverse a field of inquiry as behavioral science". I agree and think that explaining the proportion of variation explained is far more helpful to the reader than insisting on arbitrary tags for interpretations of effect sizes. Cohen (1988) (hesitantly) defined effect sizes as "small, d = .2," "medium, d = .5," and "large, d =.8". Pete.Hurd 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is surely something wrong with an article when it has to be kept afloat with a veneer of science. --sony-youthpléigh 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you just hate it when empirical data gets in the way of a comfortable world-view? Pete.Hurd 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No. --sony-youthpléigh 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
On a slightly more serious note, if you feel there's anything wrong with the science presented here, find a reliable source that debunks it. The sources cited come primarily from respectable journals - if there were any reason to believe there's a problem with the result, I've little doubt you could find some studies that refute the conclusion. WilyD 15:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the science, its a fairly guessable relationship (nutrition = height = intelligence), but the presentation of it - whether for an encyclopedia or a journal - is poor. Doing a copy edit.
There is, as you are probably aware, a (percieved) issue with ownership of the article. I came across it on AN/I for that reason when I posted here first. A bit of chilling out a letting others have a hand might not be out of order on a collaborative encyclopedia? --sony-youthpléigh 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is an ownership problem, nor am I really aware of any perception there is. The article is still somewhat poorly organised, and some copyediting is worthwhile and welcome (as would be expansion). As far as I know, the main complaint seems to be "I don't like the data" more than "I don't like the style". I'm not sure what to do for the former, and the latter is correctable by a good copyeditor (which I am not). The section you removed is a little tangential, I agree. But the article isn't "kept afloat with a veneer of science", it's a straightforward scientific result - there's a correlation between intelligence and height, with a value ~0.2. Not very exciting, but everyone who studies it finds it, so it may be worth noting - obviously some people feel it is. WilyD 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It might help to say exactly what .2 means. Are we dealing with r or d here? I'm a bit confused by Pete's post above as he as he seems to move between the two. If its p then we can simply say that .2*.2 = 0.04 => height accounts for about 4% of intelligence. If it is d then we can say that it's 1% (see here). In either case, doing so will knock off a lot of your "I don't like the data" people because it will be plain to anyone that it's, like you said, "Not very exciting." --sony-youthpléigh 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"its a fairly guessable relationship (nutrition = height = intelligence)" but that's why work like the Silventoinen paper are so interesting, because that's far from the whole story. 129.128.52.193 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you clean up that section then, because, right now, I cannot figure out what its saying. --sony-youthpléigh 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prineton Study

Basically this article exists on wikipedia (and a few hundred other sites and blogs) because of that princeton study by two econimists (and the all too easy oppurtunity for chessy puns) Otherwise, i think this topic would remain in relative obscurity along with many other studys about race and IQ etc. It calls for site hits, forum flaming, and biggotry. Ther are so many "mays" in this article:"height may be a biomarker of nutritional status" "common genetic factors may influence both height and intelligence" "both height and intelligence may be affected by adverse early environmental exposures" "the correlation between height and intelligence may stem from the correlation between height and self esteem" that i think it should be labled a therory until more conclusive evidence is brought to the table. Or at least, changed to a more accurate and less controversial title Like "Early nutrition and intelligence" since the title and article suggest that height is the cause rather than the effect. It should allso be noted that people who are geneticly shorter but reach their full height potential can be of equal or more intelligence as a tall person. Finally, it is very important to note that this is not a rule of nature: there are and have been people in the world who where undernourished and short but are no doubt of excellent intelligence. So what exactly do the studys stand for? most tall people are smarter than short people but there are anomalys and exeptions but we can't explain why? More definitive evidence and expalnations are needed otherwise it will just become another stereotype. It needs to be explained this is not a rule of nature.

  • Taller people are on average, more intelligent than shorter people and More intelligent people are on average taller than less intelligent people are the two main facts - the actual correlation is around 0.2, and it's larger among children and adolescents. The reason they're correlated simply isn't known. Researchers have offered speculation on why they're correlated but no one knows for certain. This isn't uncommon in science - there are lots of unexplained observations, with competing models to explain them. WilyD 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "On average" as suggested by some studys, yes. But it isn't stated that taller people ARE on average, more intelligent in the wiki article. While i stongly agree with most of what you say, i believe we should think very carefully before we accept something with such potential for prejudice as a fact even if it's only in general.
  • Can you expand on this remark? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. The number and size of studies suggests the correlation is very well established, but like the M sigma relation, the cause of the correlation isn't. Beyond that, since the authors of these studies speculate on the cause, I think their ideas about the cause of the relationship is important to measure. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else we can say? Reading the studies, it seems to be the case that more intelligent people are taller on average. WilyD 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This will remain original research until the links point to a full elucidation of the actual study

The studies in this article need to see the light of day. Until their links point to the complete study this article is suspect.01001 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please read WP:V to see why that view is mistaken. WilyD 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Page Locked

AWww Look what happens when willy don't get his way with me: he locks the page from other people who may actually help you cant edit this page cause he locked cause of me. Just see this will vanish in seconds—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.240.7 (talk • contribs)

  • It's unfortunate when pages have to be semi-protected. Anyways, if vandalism re-erupts when semi-protection expires, it can always be reapplied. I'd hate to have to semi-protect this page, but I will if I have to. Cheers, WilyD 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackery

This is a poorly edited ramble. It also seems like poor science. Although there is a link between income, work (especially in politics) and height, traditionally tall people were seen as "big but dumb". The article seems like quackery. And for the record, I am 6'3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.102.211 (talk • contribs)

Public perception does not dictate reality. See: Flat Earth. I could be considered biased since I'm 6'5", but your logic doesn't seem to hold up, although poorly edited is subjective and I tend to agree. DavimusK (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the asian exception

yeah, how do you explain that asians are so smart and yet they are so short? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.195.85 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

...I believe all the studies cited here have shown the effect within populations, you are talking about effects between populations, which is something totally different. Pete.Hurd 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point, that needs to be made clearer. --sony-youthpléigh 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"... within populations" - looks to me to be slightly off, though better than my clumsy effort. Surely any group of people selected for a study is a "population", whether they come from the same country/racial group/etc. or not. If one of these studies were repeated using one person from every country on earth it would still be comparing samples from within a population. --sony-youthpléigh 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, using the statistical sampling definition of "population" then you have a point... fix it as you like... Pete.Hurd 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone explained to me once that Asians don't tend to be more intelligent on average than other races, but they simply are compelled by higher requirements in society and in their families. Many Asian pupils come from first or second generation immigrant families (speaking about the US right now), so the original immigrants tend to be well-to-do businessmen and women who are intelligent and pass the hard working onto the children. I don't have a source to verify this, but it seems reasonable, although I'm not sure if this falls into the jurisdiction being discussed. DavimusK (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] and the gender exception

How it come that women are on average shorter, but they are not less intelligent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.155.42 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes me wonder how the results would vary if the subjects were women only, if the correlation is there as well or if something like hair colour replaces the height equivalent in men. DavimusK (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard Nietzsche saying that on average women are more intelligent than men! O.o How da you explain dat? 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)68.161.204.136 (talk)

You heard Nietzsche? Tell him I say hello.Mitch1981 (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Alternate Explanation - Assortative Mating

Arthur Jensen puts forth an explanation not listed on the page, in his book The G-Factor. Basically, smart alpha males mate with attractive women, and long legs are an attractive feature in a woman. This explanation is suggested by the fact that there is no correlation between sitting height (height from the waist up) to intelligence/IQ, but there is to leg length and overall height. Smart successful men + beautiful leggy women --> smart, long-legged offspring. Maybe I'll scrounge up the studies sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.75.61 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You should definitely find the article, or at least someone should, to establish a more neutral approach with both sides, especially since I've never heard or read a report that refutes the intelligence/height correlation. DavimusK (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hmm a classical fallacy

Inadequate interpretations of statistical results, have been an extremely persistent problem, in popular perception of scientific research. It has caused valid researches to be condemned wrongly by feminists, anti-feminists, racists and anti-racists, and even consequently caused some researchers to be rejected socially. I have to admit it is very frustrating for myself, for I am an advocate of the scientific method.

I entered this discussion page to say that

The correlation between the two factors is therefore weak, although statistically significant, and these studies do not imply that there are no short people who are highly intelligent, or that changes in physical height have a direct effect on cognitive ability.

should be omitted, because it is a trivial assumption intrinsic to performing those statistical researches. But it seems I'm wrong for that. Let me lecture you guys a bit, just on understanding statistics.

Now, eating more fruits make you generally healthier. However, you still have a nice chance to get cancer having 10+ apples a day if you smoke. You can also have only a small cherry and live forever, given that you eat cabbages and carrots and cucumbers with meals.

This analogically suggests, that exhibiting a tall idiot does not refute the hypothesis "it is more likely for a tall person to be clever", or in this case "some things that make you tall might also make you cleverer". Verifying that Einstein is 6 inches tall doesn't mean much to the theories, too. You could then justify this empirically, if you are intellegent enough to figure out the required arguments.

Although I haven't addressed all problems, this one should be sufficient to let us ignore most of the stuff in the present discussion page.

BTW, I think "... within national populations" in the very first sentence should be emphasized a bit more, because many people seem to not have read it, arguing that "Asians are shorter yet smarter" would refute the given hypothesis. Whether it is the right frame for generalization (e.g. a nation might contain both Asian shorties and the NBA ethnicity) is a question, but then we can't just say that "Japanese dwarfs are brainiacs and us USA giants are nuts!" would be good for arguing.129.67.38.26 (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)