I think we all agree here that height is a hugely important factor for getting girls. It may even be the most important component of your looks that determines your overall level of success, or your potential maximum. Of course, this argument is based on the assumption that we keep all other factors equal. This means that, for instance, of two guys of the same socio-economic status and the same level of facial attractiveness, the taller guy will do better. We also exclude outliers like being freakishly tall, i.e. 6’6″ or more. In that case, your height may indeed hurt you and you better make millions playing in the NBA to offset the disadvantages of your height.
Sometimes you hear people claim that height doesn’t matter because they know someone who is short and does better than someone else who is tall. Such comments were particularly frequent during the heydays of the seduction industry. The claim was normally phrased as there being “that one guy” who is short, ugly, and broke and nonetheless gets top-notch pussy. This is of course total bullshit, but even if it was true, it didn’t matter because it’s better to assume that you are not an extremely rare outlier. This is the basis of our entire reality, by the way: many physical laws are statistical in nature. More often than not, any constant you have encountered in physics in high school is, in fact, a random variable with an underlying distribution. We didn’t build modern physics by assuming outlier values and ignoring the big chunk of data in the middle of the distribution.
It is very easy to refute the claim that there is, or may exist somewhere, a short guy who gets more women than a taller guy with a similar background. You can clearly see that said short guy is cherry-picked. The person making the argument didn’t just pick any random short guy. What may not be immediately obvious, though, is that the tall guy in this comparison is likewise cherry-picked. We know, from observation and lived experience, that taller guys do, in general, better with women than shorter guys. This does not mean that shorter guys can’t get laid but instead that they may need to work harder to compensate for their lack of height, say by doing well in their job and making more money. Yet, a taller guy making the same effort would still do better.
If we picked a random tall guy to compare with some random short dude, we would arguably find that he does better with women than a cherry-picked short guy who allegedly does well with the ladies. Where the height-doesn’t-matter argument fully breaks down, however, is when we properly widen the scope: we first pick a random shorty guy and a random tall guy, and compare those two. Then we do this over and over and over. Just think of all tall guys you know, and all short guys. Don’t, on average, the tall guys do a lot better with women? Furthermore, for every short guy who is allegedly a “slayer” you’ll probably easily find a tall guy who bangs many more women and with much greater ease.
If you make a general observation, such as that tall guys do better with women, then it does not help to present one short guy who occasionally gets laid. It’s utterly useless as an argument. You would only refute the original claim if we could observe, in the real world, that women consistently go for shorter guys. This is absolutely not the case. In fact, it has become a meme that women want their guys to be at least six feet tall.
Lastly, if it was the case that women wanted shorter men, nobody would show up and say, “Aaron, you’re wrong because my midget friend got laid once two years ago.” If it really was the case that women wanted short men, we would have tall men congregating online, talking about “leg shortening procedures” and cursing their tall fathers, wishing they would have been born short instead. Is this happening? Of course not. I sometimes can only shake my head because I can’t even fathom how guys can be so deluded. Then again, they may need to delude themselves because they can’t face the cold, hard truth.
Did you enjoy this article? Great! Here are further steps to take:
(1) Leave a comment and tell us what you think about this article. If your comment is not related to this article, then post in the most recent Open Thread. Keep the comment policy in mind!
(2) Check out Aaron’s excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II, Sleazy Stories III, and Meditation Without Bullshit.
(3) Book Aaron for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want brutally honest advice.
(4) Donate to the upkeep of this site. This blog is free of advertising. This is great for your user experience, but the site costs money regardless. Please contribute!
“More often than not, any constant you have encountered in physics in high school is, in fact, a random variable with an underlying distribution”
????????
Which constants do you have in mind here? The first ones that pop in to my head are the speed of light, Planck’s constant, the Gravitational constant and Avogadro’s constant. None of those fit that description, unless you are talking about the inherent inaccuracy of measuring them (I suppose they have error bars).
This was a slip-up during revision. I should have worded this differently. Yes, I had uncertainties of measurement in mind. However, originally I had a reference to statistical mechanics here, which obviously relies on probabilities. The original point was stronger, but I think it would have been less accessible than pointing out that some certainties that were presented to you in high school Physics. In any case, the general point I wanted to make is that human behavior is probabilistic, and thus you could say it is a probabilistic law that women find taller men more attractive than shorter men, and outliers don’t refute this. I’m sure there are probabilistic laws in many fields.
I almost completely agree with everything you wrote. But this is not what I was trying to say. I wasn’t talking about all else being equal. I was responding to Alek’s statement: “height beats face every time”. That is where I disagree. I believe that except for cases where a guy is exceptionally short, face is more important to women. That was the only thing I was trying to say. Ofcourse I would do better with women if I was taller, but if I had to choose between being tall and having a below average face or short and an above average face I’d pick the latter.
The equivalent with regards to women would be weight. Ask yourself if the average man would rather bang a fit woman with an average face, or a plus sized model?
Is that really the equivalent? I mean obese women never have a beautiful face (in my opinion). So I don’t think it’s fair to compare these things.
You better lay low for a while because the amount of bullshit you’ve been spouting is getting a bit much. Here’s a picture of (now obese) Taylor Swift. I bet if she approached you and asked you if you want her to suck your dick so that you feel better about yourself after all the clobbering you’ve had to endure on my blog, you wouldn’t say no. I bet that your impulse is to write that you wouldn’t want her to, but that’s not really relevant, even if true, because you can bet that plenty of men wouldn’t turn down such sexual favors. In fact, you can bet that plenty of guys would be happy to pump-and-dump her and wouldn’t need boner pills to get hard.
Except it’s utter bullshit, and you never answered the question. Were you using the netherlands definition of tall? WHEN HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE EVER seen a short guy with a nice face consistently outperform tall guys with below-average face?
No, not this one short guy who did better than this one tall guy. When have you seen this as a CONSISTENT thing? And no, not by using your manipulation of playing with the definition of short and tall.
@Aaron
Fine, that’s one exeption. So what? The principle is still true. Being obese makes your face look ugly whereas being short or tall has not influence on your face. The fact that you found one exception doesn’t change that. Don’t worry about the “clobbering ” I’ve had. You wrote a whole article where you completely misrepressent my argument. Your whole article is useless if you want to prove I’m wrong. Here again you are involved in a logical error.
@Alek
This is turning in to a yes-no debate. You just assume that I am trying to deceive people. That’s not the case. I was talking about tall compared to the Dutch average height. I’ve known several short people (my height) who were better with women than all the tall ugly dudes I know.
Anyway, this isn’t going anywhere so this will be my last response. You know, both of you are actually smart, It’s a shame both of you have such a blind spot. If somebody disagrees with you, you don’t have to become paranoid.
You wrote,
To refute such a statement, one counterexample is enough. In any case, I’ve had enough of you. You’re banned.
But that’s not what’s happening. It’s the way you argue that was the issue. The intellectual dishonesty, the manipulation, the bundle of logical fallacies etc. The demeaning and insulting low-level of 5-th grader “argumentation”.
I mean for fuck’s sake, Aaron went out of his way to explain to you that cherrypicked exceptions don’t disprove a generalization, he fucking wasted precious minutes of his life explaining it to you like half a dozen times, he even wrote like an essay on it…
And what do we get at the end, this fucking bullshit:
You’re either a troll or super-dense. Guess what fuck-face? I know a short-guy who bangs more chicks than most tall guys I know.
Here’s the missing variable. The dude’s obsessed with pick up. He spends easily 100 (sometimes 200) hours a month hitting on chicks, IM-ing them endlesslly, organizing get-togethers with bunch of people etc etc… Whereas the tall guys that get laid less than him maybe invest anywhere between 0-2 hours a month on “pursuing” sex (just like most guys, they just don’t spend much time attempting pickup).
IF SOMEONE MAKES A GENERAL POINT, you don’t dispute it by pointing out exceptions (especially where you didn’t account for all else being equal, like hours spent pursuing).
– If you said that you GENERALLY see short guys with pretty faces outperform tall guys, then you would be making at least a semblance of a non-retarded counter-argument. Then the next question from people on the other side of the debate would have been “did you account for effort?”. The argument would have sufficed or passed the threshold of non-retardation to a point where people would engage you further.
– But saying “I know a short guy who bangs more chicks than a tall guy” is just plain retarded and doesn’t resemble an argument in no way shape or form… It’s such a low-level that it doesn’t even qualify you for further debate.
I actually came back on the blog to define this part for you, since I knew you’d miss the wording:
Outperform means hour-for-hour, or for equal effort.
Meaning that you consistently see short-guys with pretty faces do better than tall guys. No, not one short guy vs one tall guys… That a pretty face in short guys consistently gives that advantage to the point you can generalize it’s true.
Yes, obviously I’m talking about attractiveness. So with the same amount of effort. There is no manipulation, that’s all inside your head. Aaron ofcourse won’t let me post anymore, so it’s easy to make a false claim and win a debate if I can’t defend myself.
I’m happy to let you post this one comment. I think it’s a fitting end to your posting career on this blog.
I just noticed how unintentionally humorous that statement is because you couldn’t even defend yourself when you still had posting privileges.
Lol. It’s been a while since I’ve witnessed an Aaron/Alek dual takedown. Bravo! Good stuff.
That was quite nice indeed. I was surprised by how persistent Zwijntje was. You would expect him to back off after having been put in his place, but he didn’t want to stop, and his arguments only got worse.
This motherfucker is so dumb he doesn’t realize he obliterated his own bullshit XD
For those not following instantly, here’s the explanation…
|=== he made these two claims
A) Claims good-faced short guys should do better than tall guys even if they invest the exact same effort
B) He knows SOME good-faced short guys who do better than tall guys
THEN WHY IS IT SOME YOU FUCKING RETARD?!?!?! It wouldn’t be some short guys, it would BE ALL. You wouldn’t need to DIG UP EXCEPTIONS. You wouldn’t say “I know some”. The two claims shouldn’t exist in the same universe. How the fuck does the education system let people like this graduate elementary school.
*-> Yes I realize he can now backtrack and say either:
1) He meant all, just said “some” and talked about exceptions for some random reason when actually meant “all”… We know that trolls like this use this one often after been cornered logically.
2) The reason only some good-faced short-guys do better (even though 100% of them should according to claim A as such)… is because short guys have been lead to believe they can’t do well, so they don’t even try… so that’s why the short guys doing well are an exception EVEN THOUGH WITH BASIC LOGIC 101 THEY SHOULDN’T BE AN EXCEPTION IF CLAIM A were true. Basically, there’s a societal conspiracy to make short guys make less effort 🙂
3) He can backtrack and say something like but but but, just because we accounted for effort doesn’t mean we accounted for all factors. Which while true logically, and can be a saving grace… is still bullshit, since
A) effort is the biggest factor, and any other difference would need to be explained away by a conspiracy theory…
B) He never mentioned any such thing until now.
But basically, to make it short:
– If you account for/equalize for other factors
– FOR CLAIM A TO BE TRUE
– It then follows that all such short guys should do better than such tall guys
Yet the same motherfucker claims he knows SOME such guys, and you’ll notice I point-blank asked has he ever been witness to it ALWAYS being the case (as in those short guys always do better than those tall guys).
Yeah, Taylor has taken on some weight, but cmon man… Obese??
I supposed being married to a slender tiny asian makes all other women fat by comparison. ?
Same as when I drive my pickup truck, all cars look so tiny from up here.
In any case, Taylor Swift still looks fuckable enough to me.
You’re certainly right about that. However, Taylor Swift, while not being morbidly obese, is most certainly in the range for obesity. Also, compare Taylor Swift 2020 to Taylor Swift 2017 who was eminently fappable, and you’ll notice that she’s really been putting on the pounds.
@ AlekNovy
Why do you use the word manipulation?
I get that he’s making a dumb non-argument, but is he gaining some advantage by convincing us that face > height? Or is his gain winning the argument?
What do you mean why I use the word? Anytime a person uses a dishonest argument and knows they’re doing so, it is a manipulation attempt.
There is a difference between someone making dumb arguments out of being dumb, and one making dishonest arguments out of a different motive.
In this case (as with a lot of these trolls), the motivation is obvious. In the case of this dude/gal it was obvious he/she had some sort of a motivation to “spite” Aaron or be the “contrarian”. Just look at his history. He/she even prided herself on how she went against the grain of this place where everyone agrees. Every single comment posted was “Aaron, I disagree, you’re wrong”.
When you see a pattern like that, where whatever Aaron says, a person says the opposite is the truth… it can’t be just plain stupidity.
@Alek
Ok, I see. I didn’t realize about his/her posting history.
Oh yah, the context matters a lot. If this conversation was happening for the first time and this was a new poster, it would have gone very differently.
But this person had done this for over a year, consistently. An entire history consisting of nothing but “Aaron, you’re wrong, and the only reason people in the comments agree with you is because they’re zombies”.
To simplify it further, here’s the summary
The claim: Height beats face
Translation for retards. It means it’s a stronger factor. (we say a much stronger factor)
Dishonest counter-non-argument: “I knew a supercocial approaching machine short guy with a nine face who banged more girls than a mentalcel tall guy with a disfigured face that never left the house”. It’s not a response to the claim made.
If we keep at the simple level of generalization, a not-retarded counter-argument would be something like
“I’ve generally found that guys who are 2 inches shorter, but have a 3 points better face tend to get laid more than guys who are 2 inches taller, but 3 points lower on facial aesthetics”.
That STILL doesn’t prove that face is more important than height, because there might be other confounding factors. But it’s at least a non-retarded argument.
Example of next-level of analysis: Even if it is true that shorter guys with better faces get laid more, have we accounted for differences in effort?
BTW, this is just a theoretical example of going further with analysis. But we wouldn’t ever reach it, since no-one has even claimed that shorter guys get-laid more than taller guys with less aesthetic faces. Since nobody has ever lived a life noticing such a trend. That’s why the best we get is “i know some short guys who do”, not “short guys with prettier faces do”, but we only ever get “some short guys do”.
Such statements derive mostly from personal experiences. I’m 5’11” for example. In my personal life, guys who’ve “stolen” girls away from me were not taller in the majority of the cases, but they had indeed better faces than me. It makes statistical sense because I’m at the high end of the height spectrum. The majority of the guys are shorter than me. So one could understand if I were more concerned about the facial attractiveness than height. But that whole spiel would be different if I were very short.
In general it would be dumb to say something like face>height, because attractiveness is dependent on face, height and factors x(money, status, race, etc.): a=f*h*m*s*r*x. So first of all variables are missing in f>h and secondly by definition of the equation it can only be a special, not general case.
Perhaps a better/different/clearer way to say it would be:
– Lack of height hurts you more than lack of facial aesthetics
or
– Added height gives you more advantage than extra facial aesthetics
The problem is (I think) what guys imagine as an example of each.
– They imagine adding an extra inch in height vs getting a model face… but that’s not an equivalent. And yes, it’s better for the average guy to get a model face than a mere extra inch in height.
– An equivalent would probably be something like going from a 5 face to a 6 face vs gaining 2 inches in height (going from 5’10 to 6’0)… The height will bring many more advantages.
This may be true but what a lot of shorter guys don’t get is you don’t need to get all women. In other words, go for the women shorter than you and you’re good.
Your own eyes don’t lie. Look around – do you see guys shorter than 5’8″ with attractive women? I do all the time.
Personally, I don’t bother w/ women much taller than me and I’m sure I’m leaving money on the table (sometimes). I’m not that attracted to taller women first off, but I also don’t care to bother – we’re not that physically compatible so I don’t care. But there are tons of women (millions? Billions?) who are shorter so it’s all good.
I honestly haven’t seen a single one. In my entire life. Not even once.
Maybe you live in a Nordic country or something? In more diverse populations (US) or Asia, plenty of options for everyone regardless of height.
Yes, in our part of Europe, 99.99% of the population is white.