5’7 is technically 6 foot objectively

[Deleted member 86840]

theres a reason women say they prefer 6ft men but still date the so called “short kings”(5’7), that’s because in their eyes 5’7 and 6 foot is the same thing, according to modern anthropometric perception research, raw height is an incomplete measurement because humans don’t evaluate stature linearly. Instead, the brain relies on proportional cues such as shoulder width, limb-to-torso ratio, and average population scaling. Within this framework, heights between 5’7 and 6’0 fall into the same perceptual category because the visual system compresses small height differences into a single “normal-tall” range. In practical terms, a 5’7 male with standard proportions occupies the same visual classification zone as someone who is 6 feet, since the cognitive threshold for distinguishing those heights is far less precise than the physical measurement. As a result, 5’7 is not a shorter category but simply the compact expression of what is functionally interpreted as six-foot stature.

 

[Deleted member 86840]

ez

 

[User28823]

water

 

[topology]

TLDR: Most women visually perceive 5'7 and 6'0 as the same height because the brain judges proportions, not raw centimeters, so both fall into the same “normal-tall” category.

 

[topology]

water

Of course you're here. You're 6'1 POST LLS.

 

[surgerymaxxingsoon]

theres a reason women say they prefer 6ft men but still date the so called “short kings”(5’7), that’s because in their eyes 5’7 and 6 foot is the same thing, according to modern anthropometric perception research, raw height is an incomplete measurement because humans don’t evaluate stature linearly. Instead, the brain relies on proportional cues such as shoulder width, limb-to-torso ratio, and average population scaling. Within this framework, heights between 5’7 and 6’0 fall into the same perceptual category because the visual system compresses small height differences into a single “normal-tall” range. In practical terms, a 5’7 male with standard proportions occupies the same visual classification zone as someone who is 6 feet, since the cognitive threshold for distinguishing those heights is far less precise than the physical measurement. As a result, 5’7 is not a shorter category but simply the compact expression of what is functionally interpreted as six-foot stature.

Woahhhh

 

[User28823]

Of course you're here. You're 6'1 POST LLS.

ur a 5'4 indian larping as latino

 

[topology]

ur a 5'4 indian larping as latino

I never claimed to be latino + ur at my shoulders boyo + I'm not Indian

 

[xzylecrey]

postmaxx

 

[toji.]

theres a reason women say they prefer 6ft men but still date the so called “short kings”(5’7), that’s because in their eyes 5’7 and 6 foot is the same thing, according to modern anthropometric perception research, raw height is an incomplete measurement because humans don’t evaluate stature linearly. Instead, the brain relies on proportional cues such as shoulder width, limb-to-torso ratio, and average population scaling. Within this framework, heights between 5’7 and 6’0 fall into the same perceptual category because the visual system compresses small height differences into a single “normal-tall” range. In practical terms, a 5’7 male with standard proportions occupies the same visual classification zone as someone who is 6 feet, since the cognitive threshold for distinguishing those heights is far less precise than the physical measurement. As a result, 5’7 is not a shorter category but simply the compact expression of what is functionally interpreted as six-foot stature.

 

[iblamexyz]

theres a reason women say they prefer 6ft men but still date the so called “short kings”(5’7), that’s because in their eyes 5’7 and 6 foot is the same thing, according to modern anthropometric perception research, raw height is an incomplete measurement because humans don’t evaluate stature linearly. Instead, the brain relies on proportional cues such as shoulder width, limb-to-torso ratio, and average population scaling. Within this framework, heights between 5’7 and 6’0 fall into the same perceptual category because the visual system compresses small height differences into a single “normal-tall” range. In practical terms, a 5’7 male with standard proportions occupies the same visual classification zone as someone who is 6 feet, since the cognitive threshold for distinguishing those heights is far less precise than the physical measurement. As a result, 5’7 is not a shorter category but simply the compact expression of what is functionally interpreted as six-foot stature.

 

[MangoLover]

theres a reason women say they prefer 6ft men but still date the so called “short kings”(5’7), that’s because in their eyes 5’7 and 6 foot is the same thing, according to modern anthropometric perception research, raw height is an incomplete measurement because humans don’t evaluate stature linearly. Instead, the brain relies on proportional cues such as shoulder width, limb-to-torso ratio, and average population scaling. Within this framework, heights between 5’7 and 6’0 fall into the same perceptual category because the visual system compresses small height differences into a single “normal-tall” range. In practical terms, a 5’7 male with standard proportions occupies the same visual classification zone as someone who is 6 feet, since the cognitive threshold for distinguishing those heights is far less precise than the physical measurement. As a result, 5’7 is not a shorter category but simply the compact expression of what is functionally interpreted as six-foot stature.

 

[Deleted member 86840]

View attachment 4414986​

same height

 

[toji.]

same height

It reassures me to know that if I'm next to Gandy, I won't be height-mogged. I think what you say is valid when you're 6'0", height is marginal, you don't notice the difference the taller you are.

 

[Olympus]

theres a reason women say they prefer 6ft men but still date the so called “short kings”(5’7), that’s because in their eyes 5’7 and 6 foot is the same thing, according to modern anthropometric perception research, raw height is an incomplete measurement because humans don’t evaluate stature linearly. Instead, the brain relies on proportional cues such as shoulder width, limb-to-torso ratio, and average population scaling. Within this framework, heights between 5’7 and 6’0 fall into the same perceptual category because the visual system compresses small height differences into a single “normal-tall” range. In practical terms, a 5’7 male with standard proportions occupies the same visual classification zone as someone who is 6 feet, since the cognitive threshold for distinguishing those heights is far less precise than the physical measurement. As a result, 5’7 is not a shorter category but simply the compact expression of what is functionally interpreted as six-foot stature.

 

[OlympicSizzler]

You're not wrong about visual compression, if you try to guess people's heights sitting down, you'd easily be wrong 10/10 times, it's really hard. Same thing from the point of women. However, 5'7 and 6'0 is still a significant difference, maybe 5'9 to 6'0, that's more plausible for sure.

 

[toji.]

 

[AlphaLooksmaxxer666]

maybe so maybe so