Your height = your success in life

PeterTheNinth

Let me give you a demonstration ... I was watching a debate a few years ago before the election and there was a live debate between Pearse Doherty (Shinner) and Brian O'Domhnaill (FF).



As he looked at the monitor, I am sure Brian O'Domhnaill felt a bit like Richard Nixon in 1960. Funny, cos they looked the same size on their election posters!

ZeroThreat

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Let me give you a demonstration ... I was watching a debate a few years ago before the election and there was a live debate between Pearse Doherty (Shinner) and Brian O'Domhnaill (FF).



As he looked at the monitor, I am sure Brian O'Domhnaill felt a bit like Richard Nixon in 1960. Funny, cos they looked the same size on their election posters!

Sinn Fein don't seem to have many shortarses in their party tbh, both the late McGuinness & Adams were quite tall as far as I recall.

greencap

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/height_and_longevity_the_research_is_clear_being_tall_is_hazardous_to_your.html


Taller people die younger.

I'm sure there's exceptions, but that's the rule.

Capt'n Midnight

From the ever reliable Daily "everything gives you cancer" Mail

How your HEIGHT could predict your risk of cancer: Chance of developing the disease jumps a THIRD for every extra 10cm

How LONG LEGS are linked to bowel cancer: Taller people are more than 40% more likely to develop disease

The taller a woman is, the more likely she is to get cancer after menopause

Filmer Paradise

Ah well I'm average height & I spose I have average success in life. Must be true so.

Read something about Ian McShane one time.Early on in his career he was told that If he was a couple of inches taller he could have been next Sean Connery. As it was he had a good acting career. He just didn't make it into the front rank of film stars though.

Fathom

Only anecdotal cases. Not scientific. Today's average American male height is 5'10." If you assume height predicts wealth. Forbes top 4 Americans were average or below American average height:

1. Bill Gates 5'10" age 61 with net worth 89.9 billion dollars.
2. Jeff Bezos 5'8" age 53 with net worth 83.9 billion dollars.
3. Warren Buffett 5'10" age 86 with net worth 77.3 billion dollars.
4. Mark Zuckerberg 5'7" age 33 with net worth 70.5 billion dollars.

More tall average stories.

Surreptitious

I've worked with executive chefs of five star hotels smaller than me and I'm small. Typical stupid thread by some guy feeling inadequate about his height.

Michael D. Higgins is doing alright for himself.

NIMAN

So that guy I know who is on the dole and is 6ft 4in, what's up with him?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Big male myself.

6'1 and 13 and a half stone.

A Light Heavyweight in Boxing terms.

Synthol

Fathom wrote: »

Only anecdotal cases. Not scientific. Today's average American male height is 5'10." If you assume height predicts wealth. Forbes top 4 Americans were average or below American average height:

1. Bill Gates 5'10" age 61 with net worth 89.9 billion dollars.
   
2. Jeff Bezos 5'8" age 53 with net worth 83.9 billion dollars.
   
3. Warren Buffett 5'10" age 86 with net worth 77.3 billion dollars.
   
4. Mark Zuckerberg 5'7" age 33 with net worth 70.5 billion dollars.

More tall average stories.

You gave 4 examples.. How many companies are in the world? And how many CEOS? There is something called average.

Synthol

Surreptitious wrote: »

I've worked with executive chefs of five star hotels smaller than me and I'm small. Typical stupid thread by some guy feeling inadequate about his height.

Would you like to meet me and see my height? I have absolutely no problem to come to prove to you my height, I am 6ft1.

Synthol

NIMAN wrote: »

So that guy I know who is on the dole and is 6ft 4in, what's up with him?

He is an exception to the rule.

AllForIt

OP, R2D2 would agree with your thread title but perhaps not the content.

Height is extremely important in spite of what feel good stuff you might hear from people who "just happen to be" of average height or taller. But it's more a matter of avoiding being short than being "tall". In current society, for a man, 5'11 is safe in all contexts, 5'10 is safe in most contexts and 5'9 is the cut off for height not holding you back too much, in my mind. Someone 5'10 who for whatever reason thinks they are short and points to their "lack of height" holding them back has the luxury of it being the case that it's mostly in their head in reality and that other people don't see them as short but someone 5'7 or shorter is seen as short by everyone since they are about 4 inches shorter than average for young men nowadays. There are basically no advantages to being short - people say they live longer but I would, without hesitation, trade up from being just under 5'7 to being 5'10 and walk around the world grinning like a cheshire cat in my average height body, in spite of my theoretically reduced life-span.

James Cook

James Cook wrote: »

There is a correlation between height and intelligence.

I have heard people dismiss this before but I can't imagine, from an "all else being equal" point of view, how desirable genes for intelligence don't end up being associated with desirable genes for height over the generations as good-looking successful people have babies with good-looking successful people. Depressing I know but still reality. You only need to walk around South Dublin (where the average intelligence must surely be higher since it takes higher paying jobs to afford to live there) for a while to notice that being over 6 foot is basically the norm.

PeterTheNinth

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Let me give you a demonstration ... I was watching a debate a few years ago before the election and there was a live debate between Pearse Doherty (Shinner) and Brian O'Domhnaill (FF).



As he looked at the monitor, I am sure Brian O'Domhnaill felt a bit like Richard Nixon in 1960. Funny, cos they looked the same size on their election posters!

Smug grin on Doherty there

Neon_Lights

If you're five ft nothing and a girl you can give a blowjob standing up, that's incredibly successful

Sam Kade

Synthol wrote: »

Many scientific studies have found that the taller you are the more successful you will be. A person that is 5.7ft is much less likely to be as successful as a person that is 6.4ft

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tall-people-are-richer-and-successful-2015-9?r=US&IR=T
(study inside the article)

There is no doubt that the taller you are the more money you will make and the higher position in employment you will command. There are exceptions to every rule but in the majority of cases, it applies. Another study has also found that most of the CEOS are well above average height or any other position of command such as a senior manager. So I guess your success is pre determined at least mostly anyway

Well that post proves one thing, scientific studies are sh1te.

anewme

Another day, another bull**** survey...

Martin Luther King, Bruce Lee, Winston Churchill, Napoleon, Mahatma Gandhi, Prince, Robin Williams, Tom Cruise, Robert Downey Jnr, Paul Simon, Yuri Gagarin, Charlie Chaplin, Bono, Pablo Picasso, Thom Youke, Alan Sugar, Al Pacino, Michael J Fox, Roger Daltrey, woody Allen, Daniel Radcliffe, Humphrey Bogart, Bruno Mars, Jack Black, Beethoven, Danny de Vito, Elton John, Beck, Martin Scorsese, Truman Capote, Lionel Messi, Maradonna, Mel Brooks, Salvador Dali, Alfred Hitchcock...to name but a few.

Some of the most talented and successful people in the world.

They must not have got the memo.

Or maybe it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

pickarooney

TheBully wrote: »

Name one successful person with no money and no job?

Jesus

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Height is extremely important in spite of what feel good stuff you might hear from people who "just happen to be" of average height or taller. But it's more a matter of avoiding being short than being "tall". In current society, for a man, 5'11 is safe in all contexts, 5'10 is safe in most contexts and 5'9 is the cut off for height not holding you back too much, in my mind. Someone 5'10 who for whatever reason thinks they are short and points to their "lack of height" holding them back has the luxury of it being the case that it's mostly in their head in reality and that other people don't see them as short but someone 5'7 or shorter is seen as short by everyone since they are about 4 inches shorter than average for young men nowadays. There are basically no advantages to being short - people say they live longer but I would, without hesitation, trade up from being just under 5'7 to being 5'10 and walk around the world grinning like a cheshire cat in my average height body, in spite of my theoretically reduced life-span.

I wouldn't, personally I'd prefer to be a hale and healthy shortarse who lives to old age rather than being the tallest guy in the graveyard.

BBDBB

Maybe they aren't very small, maybe they are just far away

silverharp

anewme wrote: »

Another day, another bull**** survey...

Martin Luther King, Bruce Lee, Winston Churchill, Napoleon, Mahatma Gandhi, Prince, Robin Williams, Tom Cruise, Robert Downey Jnr, Paul Simon, Yuri Gagarin, Charlie Chaplin, Bono, Pablo Picasso, Thom Youke, Alan Sugar, Al Pacino, Michael J Fox, Roger Daltrey, woody Allen, Daniel Radcliffe, Humphrey Bogart, Bruno Mars, Jack Black, Beethoven, Danny de Vito, Elton John, Beck, Martin Scorsese, Truman Capote, Lionel Messi, Maradonna, Mel Brooks, Salvador Dali, Alfred Hitchcock...to name but a few.

Some of the most talented and successful people in the world.

They must not have got the memo.

Or maybe it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

might be what pushed them on, if you know that being short lowers you in the pecking order but you also know you can compensate by being more ambitious ...

railer201

Would casting a long shadow do instead ?

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

Height is extremely important in spite of what feel good stuff you might hear from people who "just happen to be" of average height or taller. But it's more a matter of avoiding being short than being "tall". In current society, for a man, 5'11 is safe in all contexts, 5'10 is safe in most contexts and 5'9 is the cut off for height not holding you back too much, in my mind. Someone 5'10 who for whatever reason thinks they are short and points to their "lack of height" holding them back has the luxury of it being the case that it's mostly in their head in reality and that other people don't see them as short but someone 5'7 or shorter is seen as short by everyone since they are about 4 inches shorter than average for young men nowadays. There are basically no advantages to being short - people say they live longer but I would, without hesitation, trade up from being just under 5'7 to being 5'10 and walk around the world grinning like a cheshire cat in my average height body, in spite of my theoretically reduced life-span.

"Extremely important" is an extreme exaggeration. There's benefits alright, but of the fringe variety, a few extra inches alone isn't guaranteeing you anything.

I get a sense from this thread of some people unsuccessfully trying to establish superiority, and then troll the others, based on 1 trait they possess, but failing because the logic only works to a point.

A few extra centimeters of leg bone gets you something alright, but only so much. Easily counteracted by a big schnoz or a messy grill or a lack of muscle.

Pherekydes

Ninthlife wrote: »

How come we have many famous 'little people' but no giants..

What about the guy who wrote Jurassic Park and many other hits? Michael Crichton, 6'9"?

andekwarhola

Proof that shortarses can make it:

greencap

greencap wrote: »

" Easily counteracted by a big schnoz or a messy grill or a lack of muscle.

All 3 of which can be improved (the big nose being the most difficult obviously) - height can't be rectified except with extreme measures that bring lots of potential dangers and a diminishment of mobility. Sure being 5'7 is not the *worst* thing that could happen to a man, but being 4 foot would suck pretty bad don't you think? The quantification of how bad a persons height is is just an issue of degree in between these two heights.

greencap

Deleted User wrote: »

All 3 of which can be improved (the big nose being the most difficult obviously) - height can't be rectified except with extreme measures that bring lots of potential dangers and a diminishment of mobility. Sure being 5'7 is not the *worst* thing that could happen to a man, but being 4 foot would suck pretty bad don't you think? The quantification of how bad a persons height is is just an issue of degree in between these two heights.

This could go round in ever increasing circles, but yes extra height is a good thing to have.

What its not is the be all and end all.

Keeping the issue within the parameters of the median I would compare extra height to a good card in a poker hand.

What some here are wishfully mistaking their royal card for is unquestionable success.