Can someone please explain this height study?

[Doomerteen]

What I want to know is why 6'4 and 6'5 are not ideal heights (according to this figure)

As a bloke who's been blessed with the height genes (currently 6'5), alot of people compliment me on my height, especially women; and in comparison to someone who's 6'1, I'm considered more attractive

So if being between 6'4-6'4 is considered ideal, according to other studies shown in other forums, why is 5'8 deemed to be more attractive?

 

[Deleted member 5185]

Where is the study?

IIRC, they figured out that women on average want to date men who are 21cm taller than them, which means that if you are 195 cm, you are the "perfect height" for women around 174cm give or take.

The issue is of course that the study only deals in averages. My experience is that women of all heights are attracted to my height (6'4), and I suspect that a height between 6'1 to 6'5 falls within the ideal where the differences between each height gets less and less important compared to other factors.

 

[Deleted member 12611]

If the study depends on self reporting it is useless. 6'5 outslays 6'4 outslays 6'3 etc. etc.

 

[Deleted member 5521]

6'4+ people have lower lifespans, plus higher chances of facial deformity,etc. In a vacuum if you ask a girl to choose 6'5 or 5'8 they will always choose 6'5, but that doesnt mean being super tall is optimal genetic fitness. I do believe that in places outside of USA where people arent extremely heightist 5'11-6'2 is the best balance for both longevity and quality of life