![far336](/data/avatars/l/6/6799.jpg?1607208912)
far336
Bronze
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
- Posts
- 342
- Reputation
- 962
I avoided looking into studies that only have surveys for women to fill to minimize the effect of virtue signalling as well as to look at their actions and not their words. At the bottom of each study, I assign points as a percentage in relation to the other heights, with 1 being the highest point. I'll show how I did this for the first study. I only did this for heights between 5'11 to 6'5 as those were the heights that seemed significant in each study.
Study 1: Speed dating about height vs frequency of acceptance. After 3 minutes of a male and female interaction, women discreetly record if they would like to see the man again
Heights: 5'11 (221 pixels), 6'0 (230 pixels), 6'1 (218 pixels), 6'2 (210 pixels), 6'3 (181 pixels), 6'4 (157 pixels), 6'5 (126 pixels)
Heights: 5'11 (221/230), 6'0 (230/230), 6'1 (218/230), 6'2 (210/230), 6'3 (181/230), 6'4 (157/230), 6'5 (126/230)
Heights: 5'11 (0.96), 6'0 (1.0), 6'1 (0.95), 6'2 (0.91), 6'3 (0.79), 6'4 (0.68), 6'5 (0.55)
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes
Study 2: Online dating data about height vs frequency of first contacts
Heights: 5'11 - 6'0 (0.75), 6'1-6'2(0.88), 6'3-6'4(1.0), 6'5-6'6(0.88)
Link: http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf
Study 3: OkCupid data of about height vs frequency of number of messages received
Heights: 5'11 (0.91), 6'0 (0.94), 6'1 (1.0), 6'2 (0.98), 6'3 (0.94), 6'4 (0.97), 6'5 (0.96)
Link: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/thebigliespeopletellinonlinedating.html
Study 4: OkCupid self reported data about height vs frequency of sex partners
Heights: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0(0.92), 6'1(0.91), 6'2(0.92), 6'3 (0.90), 6'4 (0.90), 6'5(1.0)
Link: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/thebigliespeopletellinonlinedating.html
Study 5: Self reported data about height vs frequency of sex partners
Heights: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0 (0.90), 6'1(0.92), 6'2(0.94), 6'3 (0.91), 6'4(0.85), 6'5(1.0)
Link: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=psychology_articles
Summary of heights in each study
Study 1: 5'11 (0.96), 6'0 (1.0), 6'1 (0.95), 6'2 (0.91), 6'3 (0.79), 6'4 (0.68), 6'5 (0.55)
Study 2: 5'11 - 6'0 (0.75), 6'1-6'2(0.88), 6'3-6'4(1.0), 6'5-6'6(0.88)
Study 3: 5'11 (0.91), 6'0 (0.94), 6'1 (1.0), 6'2 (0.98), 6'3 (0.94), 6'4 (0.97), 6'5 (0.96)
Study 4: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0(0.92), 6'1(0.91), 6'2(0.92), 6'3 (0.90), 6'4 (0.90), 6'5(1.0)
Study 5: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0 (0.90), 6'1(0.92), 6'2(0.94), 6'3 (0.91), 6'4(0.85), 6'5(1.0)
When we add up these points, we get the following for each height:
5'11: 0.96 + 0.75 + 0.91 + 0.90 + 0.90 = 4.42
6'0: 1.0 + 0.75 + 0.94 + 0.92 + 0.90 = 4.51
6'1: 0.95 + 0.88 + 1.0 + 0.91 + 0.92 = 4.66
6'2: 0.91 + 0.88 + 0.98 + 0.92 + 0.94 = 4.63
6'3: 0.79 + 1.0 + 0.94 + 0.90 + 0.91 = 4.54
6'4: 0.68 + 1.0 + 0.97 + 0.90 + 0.85 = 4.40
6'5: 0.55 + 0.88 + 0.96 + 1.0 + 1.0 = 4.39
We can see that 6'1 and 6'2 have the highest points, so we can conclude that either of these two are the most attractive height.
Do you disagree with this conclusion? If so, why?
Study 1: Speed dating about height vs frequency of acceptance. After 3 minutes of a male and female interaction, women discreetly record if they would like to see the man again
Heights: 5'11 (221 pixels), 6'0 (230 pixels), 6'1 (218 pixels), 6'2 (210 pixels), 6'3 (181 pixels), 6'4 (157 pixels), 6'5 (126 pixels)
Heights: 5'11 (221/230), 6'0 (230/230), 6'1 (218/230), 6'2 (210/230), 6'3 (181/230), 6'4 (157/230), 6'5 (126/230)
Heights: 5'11 (0.96), 6'0 (1.0), 6'1 (0.95), 6'2 (0.91), 6'3 (0.79), 6'4 (0.68), 6'5 (0.55)
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes
Study 2: Online dating data about height vs frequency of first contacts
Heights: 5'11 - 6'0 (0.75), 6'1-6'2(0.88), 6'3-6'4(1.0), 6'5-6'6(0.88)
Link: http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf
Study 3: OkCupid data of about height vs frequency of number of messages received
Heights: 5'11 (0.91), 6'0 (0.94), 6'1 (1.0), 6'2 (0.98), 6'3 (0.94), 6'4 (0.97), 6'5 (0.96)
Link: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/thebigliespeopletellinonlinedating.html
Study 4: OkCupid self reported data about height vs frequency of sex partners
Heights: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0(0.92), 6'1(0.91), 6'2(0.92), 6'3 (0.90), 6'4 (0.90), 6'5(1.0)
Link: https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/thebigliespeopletellinonlinedating.html
Study 5: Self reported data about height vs frequency of sex partners
Heights: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0 (0.90), 6'1(0.92), 6'2(0.94), 6'3 (0.91), 6'4(0.85), 6'5(1.0)
Link: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=psychology_articles
Summary of heights in each study
Study 1: 5'11 (0.96), 6'0 (1.0), 6'1 (0.95), 6'2 (0.91), 6'3 (0.79), 6'4 (0.68), 6'5 (0.55)
Study 2: 5'11 - 6'0 (0.75), 6'1-6'2(0.88), 6'3-6'4(1.0), 6'5-6'6(0.88)
Study 3: 5'11 (0.91), 6'0 (0.94), 6'1 (1.0), 6'2 (0.98), 6'3 (0.94), 6'4 (0.97), 6'5 (0.96)
Study 4: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0(0.92), 6'1(0.91), 6'2(0.92), 6'3 (0.90), 6'4 (0.90), 6'5(1.0)
Study 5: 5'11 (0.90), 6'0 (0.90), 6'1(0.92), 6'2(0.94), 6'3 (0.91), 6'4(0.85), 6'5(1.0)
When we add up these points, we get the following for each height:
5'11: 0.96 + 0.75 + 0.91 + 0.90 + 0.90 = 4.42
6'0: 1.0 + 0.75 + 0.94 + 0.92 + 0.90 = 4.51
6'1: 0.95 + 0.88 + 1.0 + 0.91 + 0.92 = 4.66
6'2: 0.91 + 0.88 + 0.98 + 0.92 + 0.94 = 4.63
6'3: 0.79 + 1.0 + 0.94 + 0.90 + 0.91 = 4.54
6'4: 0.68 + 1.0 + 0.97 + 0.90 + 0.85 = 4.40
6'5: 0.55 + 0.88 + 0.96 + 1.0 + 1.0 = 4.39
We can see that 6'1 and 6'2 have the highest points, so we can conclude that either of these two are the most attractive height.
Do you disagree with this conclusion? If so, why?