United States, once tallest, has been overtaken by Netherlands since the 50s(wsj.com)
wsj.com
United States, once tallest, has been overtaken by Netherlands since the 50s
https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-the-tallest-of-them-all-its-no-longer-the-americans-11553254201
65 comments
[deleted]
Throwing it in [outline.com](https://outline.com) has been the easiest for me so far
This finally broke. https://outline.com/sSMk7s
Or just bypass them to being with. Here's a good plugin for firefox: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox
If you can afford a subscription, please consider supporting our Free Press. Last year, 53 journalists like khashoggi were murdered in their quest to keep us informed. America's leader has a war on the Fourth Estate constantly labeling them, "Fake News". American Journalists are paying the price for this toxic rhetoric.[2][3] In this time more than ever, those that can afford it, please support real journalism like WSJ, NYT, and Wapo.
Social Media has been a gift to dictators, allowing them to speak directly to their subjects. It also has embolden them to use violence against journalists that report the world in a way that conflicts with their message.
I've been trying to do my part by giving out digital subscriptions to friends and family that share actual fake news on social media.
[1] https://www.apnews.com/2deb8e97a7454800803bc5d156c36d2f
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_United_States_mai...
Social Media has been a gift to dictators, allowing them to speak directly to their subjects. It also has embolden them to use violence against journalists that report the world in a way that conflicts with their message.
I've been trying to do my part by giving out digital subscriptions to friends and family that share actual fake news on social media.
[1] https://www.apnews.com/2deb8e97a7454800803bc5d156c36d2f
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_United_States_mai...
Some good people got murdered, so give your money to this big corporation? I don't follow.
First of all there are still local newspapers that have enough business to support investigative journalism. We can thank the Miami Herald for their work in breaking the Trump labor Sec. / Epstein scandal wide open. [1]
Secondly there are nonprofit like ProPublica that do amazing work. They were a major force that brought the dangers of fracking into light.[2]
Finally, Investigative journalism isn't cheap. The orgs need to pay a salary and travel costs for months and years on a story that may or may not pan out. In an interview, the journalist that broke it said that it took months to research and fact check an anonymous tip to develop it into a full blow story.
So no, I don't feel bad about NYT being a "corporation" when their quality journalism brings to light stores like this.
[1] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
[2] https://www.propublica.org/series/fracking
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
Secondly there are nonprofit like ProPublica that do amazing work. They were a major force that brought the dangers of fracking into light.[2]
Finally, Investigative journalism isn't cheap. The orgs need to pay a salary and travel costs for months and years on a story that may or may not pan out. In an interview, the journalist that broke it said that it took months to research and fact check an anonymous tip to develop it into a full blow story.
So no, I don't feel bad about NYT being a "corporation" when their quality journalism brings to light stores like this.
[1] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
[2] https://www.propublica.org/series/fracking
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/d...
The NYT also enabled harvey weinstein and spread lies about yellowcake which caused an illegal war and countless dead middle easterners.
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-...
Giving your family subscriptions to these companies is just as bad as given then facebook accounts.
You seem to be under the childishy impression that if one is bad, then the other is good. That's not how things work. The NYT and Trump could both be bad. The NYT and Facebook can boh be back.
For all the talk about how bad social media is, so many news people are all over social media begging people to buy subscriptions.
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-...
Giving your family subscriptions to these companies is just as bad as given then facebook accounts.
You seem to be under the childishy impression that if one is bad, then the other is good. That's not how things work. The NYT and Trump could both be bad. The NYT and Facebook can boh be back.
For all the talk about how bad social media is, so many news people are all over social media begging people to buy subscriptions.
This is a more reasonable line of argument. Start with this rather than "pay party A in order to balance out harms to party B".
As a quick reminder to readers of the parent comment, there are A LOT of details related to the Khashoggi murder that may invalidate the reference being made in the above comment. To elaborate more would take this discussion even more off-topic and likely would lead to a rapid gray-down and flagging of this comment.
The WSJ is owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world. Why are you begging people here to buy a subscription? If you can't make ends meeet, why not ask one of the riches men in the world to invest more in his company?
And for every journalist who died, millions of innocent people died from wars from lies pushed by these journalists. How much blood of the innocent are on the hands of the WSJ, NYT and Wapo just in the past 18 years?
If "Social Media" has been a gift to dictators, what do you think newspapers are? And what message are these journalists reporting? The message of the wealthy?
There is no denying that social media can be toxic and bad for society. But that goes for the WSJ, NYT and Wapo as well.
There have been tons of studies and reports noting how bad news is for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...
Frankly, social media became toxic when it got overrun by journalists and the news industry. Politics and news is why social media is so toxic.
And for every journalist who died, millions of innocent people died from wars from lies pushed by these journalists. How much blood of the innocent are on the hands of the WSJ, NYT and Wapo just in the past 18 years?
If "Social Media" has been a gift to dictators, what do you think newspapers are? And what message are these journalists reporting? The message of the wealthy?
There is no denying that social media can be toxic and bad for society. But that goes for the WSJ, NYT and Wapo as well.
There have been tons of studies and reports noting how bad news is for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro...
Frankly, social media became toxic when it got overrun by journalists and the news industry. Politics and news is why social media is so toxic.
OR just don't read the article. If WSJ wants to charge for access, and I'm not entitled to said access, then I'm just not reading the article. This is as close to voting with my wallet as I can get.
Routing around with outline.com or redirects through fb.com doens't really help the problem. Stop reading it and move onto other sources who welcome your eyeballs without direct payment. Support the indie journalists.
Routing around with outline.com or redirects through fb.com doens't really help the problem. Stop reading it and move onto other sources who welcome your eyeballs without direct payment. Support the indie journalists.
Can someone please sum it up for those that don't have a subscription?
> "As for why the height of Americans has plateaued, while the Dutch continue to grow like weeds, Dr. Komlos theorized that it is because of differences in nutrition, health care and spending.
“Average income is a very misleading indicator,” Dr. Komlos said. “It depends on who gets that income, and how it is used. If you’re healthier, if you go to the doctor regularly, you’re likely to live longer. And you’re also likely to become taller.”
“Average income is a very misleading indicator,” Dr. Komlos said. “It depends on who gets that income, and how it is used. If you’re healthier, if you go to the doctor regularly, you’re likely to live longer. And you’re also likely to become taller.”
The Dutch have gained 8 inches in height, on average, over the last 150 years. Americans meanwhile onl gained 6cm of height
'Natural selection'. From another, similar article:
Average-height women seemed to be favored when it came to having kids, even though taller women had kids who I'm sure the height of the average American has been lowered by immigration from typically shorter people from China, Mexicao, and India were more likely to survive. That, in turn, contributed to the reproductive success of tall men.
'Natural selection'. From another, similar article:
Average-height women seemed to be favored when it came to having kids, even though taller women had kids who I'm sure the height of the average American has been lowered by immigration from typically shorter people from China, Mexicao, and India were more likely to survive. That, in turn, contributed to the reproductive success of tall men.
>What is immigration?
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Immigrants into the USA come from shorter countries so that is a likely factor.
It's amazing how much taller second and third generation immigrants are than their parents/grandparents.
It's all diet. I'm ten inches taller than my grandfather and 7 inches taller than my dad. When I was a kid I remember my granda joking about eating 'white people food' like milk, peanut butter and jelly, and hamburgers, and that being why I got so tall.
It's all diet. I'm ten inches taller than my grandfather and 7 inches taller than my dad. When I was a kid I remember my granda joking about eating 'white people food' like milk, peanut butter and jelly, and hamburgers, and that being why I got so tall.
I'm curious if this is mainly due to the diet being healthier, or due to hormones that are given to cows and eventually transferred to the consumer.
Like most things, it’s probably half environmental and half genetic.
I'd say for two reasons. Firstly, the article suggests that immigrants were controlled (whites and blacks compared) for so it appears this poster is commenting on something without even reading it, and secondly, the style of the comment makes it clear the commenter is a smug prick with a belief in their own smartness beyond their actual ability - nobody likes a smug prick who doesn't even read the article.
Given how height conveys many advantages, including higher pay* thanks to people's biases of taller = leader, I wonder how long it will be before people start genetically modifying their unborn children to be taller.
* https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2016/03/theres-a-new-ty...
* https://www.payscale.com/career-news/2016/03/theres-a-new-ty...
Does anyone besides pop psychologists actually believe that?
Yes. For example, most people that have ever seen any of the relevant statistics.
Yeah, I believe it. It may be slight, and depend quite a bit on the individual, but I believe it for the same reason I believe attractive people have advantages (and height is an attribute in attractiveness for many), including getting paid more, which is to say for a plethora of small reasons that make sense to me and all add up to the same conclusion.
Increased confidence in dealing with others, including negotiating pay. Increased physical capability. Favoratism. Any number of other things.
On the flip side, why wouldn't being more attractive provide benefits? Because people strive to always be rational and know their own biases so they can be fair? That's hardly how I see most people acting on a day to day basis. Because less attractive people will try to punish attractive people? Also not something I see often (or at all, really).
Increased confidence in dealing with others, including negotiating pay. Increased physical capability. Favoratism. Any number of other things.
On the flip side, why wouldn't being more attractive provide benefits? Because people strive to always be rational and know their own biases so they can be fair? That's hardly how I see most people acting on a day to day basis. Because less attractive people will try to punish attractive people? Also not something I see often (or at all, really).
People have studied this. The effect is IIRC each inch of height for a man (within the sampled range) confers a 1-2% increase in income, after adjusting for other easily measured factors (race, education, hours worked, etc.)
To give a sense of scale, a 5'4" man faces a larger "height gap" than the adjusted gender gap for women.
To give a sense of scale, a 5'4" man faces a larger "height gap" than the adjusted gender gap for women.
This doesn't necessarily mean what you think it would mean. As always the problem with social sciences is that correlation != causation. For instance taller people also have higher IQs. [1] Its for reasons like this that I think we're rather more likely to recreate Frankenstein than Gattaca.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence
Although it's entirely possible that height and/or attractiveness as an advantageous cultural norm also explains this. If height is seen as attractive, and beauty leads to more opportunities in education (more accessible peer tutoring partners, better study group interaction, more likely to get help from a teacher, etc).
But yes, teasing out the actual causes for anything like that seems impossibly hard (without breaking ethical guidelines), thus we have a lot of conjecture.
But yes, teasing out the actual causes for anything like that seems impossibly hard (without breaking ethical guidelines), thus we have a lot of conjecture.
There have been numerous studies showing how even extremely subtle things can influence people's perception. If you specifically asked someone "would you be willing to pay more for a good if you see unrelated expensive goods in the background?" Most people would say of course not. And yet studies show that the average person actually would be willing to pay more.
I'd be shocked if something as blatantly obvious as height would have no impact on someone's perceived authority. Anecdotally, I can say that I find it much more natural to act as a leader around people who are shorter than me.
I would pay $25,000 for a proven-safe generic modification that made my son top 20% in height (excluding the absurd, above say 6’5”) or my daughter top 20% in “ideal figure.” Looks help people a lot in life.
What happens when more than 20% of population has achieved maximum healthy height?
I belive we're hardwired to find certain traits attractive no matter how many people have them. If you move to a country where every man is tall and has a square jaw you probably won't stop finding that attractive, but you'll take that as a given and start looking for other traits.
I’m very curious to know about growth hormone usage those days. Thirty years ago it could lead to contamination with bad disease due to the fact that hormones were taken from corpses, but now that it’s not the case anymore, i tend to think they’re massively used.
For being so advanced, humans still fall for the most reptilian stereotypes like this. Taken to extremes in books like "Of Mice and Men" where the short, frail guy is an untrustable genius while the tall, dumb guy has some sort of superhuman strength. I would love to know where that started because it's still a thing.
I would think it’s innate. Being tall usually means physically more powerful, so it seems like an inherent advantage for mating.
It might be natural or innate. Even young children associate taller with good and shorter with bad. I forget where but there was a documentary where children were asked to associate qualities to stick figures. The children gave the taller stick figures the positive qualities and the shorter stick figures the negative qualities.
We know that adults definitely associate positive qualities with height. We know voters associate positive traits to taller candidate. And females do as well - assign more positive traits to the taller male.
We know that adults definitely associate positive qualities with height. We know voters associate positive traits to taller candidate. And females do as well - assign more positive traits to the taller male.
As predicted by Invader Zim: https://zim.fandom.com/wiki/Almighty_Tallest
During early years of human development it is actually possible to effect and increase height by physical excercise, more specifically aerobic excercise.
Is immigration considered as a factor in such studies? Because many of the tallest nations in Europe are some of the least ethnically diverse.
Also, 4 out of 10 tallest nations in the world are from former Yugoslavia, which is one of the poorest regions of Europe[1].
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/the-tal...
Also, 4 out of 10 tallest nations in the world are from former Yugoslavia, which is one of the poorest regions of Europe[1].
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/the-tal...
I'm not sure if it's factored in in the study, but the Netherlands is far from ethnically homogenous. Also, most immigration to NL has been post-1950 whereas the USA pre-1950 was an outlier in the Western world for its intake of immigrants.
Netherlands is an exception. Most of the countries in the top 10 are extremely ethnically homogenous, and it has nothing to do with income. Montenegro (#2) is one of the poorest, and Norway (#4) is one of the richest.
Not sure if i understood you correctly, but just in case : Japan is a enthnically very not diverse, and has a very short population. Some ethnicities are taller than others, for sure. So in a way, japan could benefit from immigration from holland, should it happen one day.
If you looked at the tallest and the shortest nations in the world, you would see, that most of them are not ethnically diverse at all.
My point is, that the height of a person has nothing to do with the income, but rather with his anchestry.
And because the US is extremely etnically diverse, making any conclusions is pointless.
My point is, that the height of a person has nothing to do with the income, but rather with his anchestry.
And because the US is extremely etnically diverse, making any conclusions is pointless.
malnutrition during early childhood causes low height: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunted_growth
It's pretty obvious this is about immigration and origin, not income or healthcare.
Mesoamericans, which became Central Americans, and have since immigrated in large numbers to the US, tend to be shorter than Europeans.
Japan has some of the healthiest people on Earth, as measured by things like nutrition, healthcare, and lifespan. But they are still shorter on average than the much poorer Estonians.
It feels like the author is inappropriately shoehorning this data into a statement about healthcare.
Mesoamericans, which became Central Americans, and have since immigrated in large numbers to the US, tend to be shorter than Europeans.
Japan has some of the healthiest people on Earth, as measured by things like nutrition, healthcare, and lifespan. But they are still shorter on average than the much poorer Estonians.
It feels like the author is inappropriately shoehorning this data into a statement about healthcare.
They also get immigrants in the NL, and quite a lot of them are also shorter.
[deleted]
Since 50s? Asian peoples, post-wwii immigration.
I thought the same thing until I got to this part:
"Based on white and black U.S.-born adults ... Asians and Hispanics, who would make Americans appear even shorter, are excluded to better illuminate how the U.S. compares to Western Europeans."
Turns it from a "well, duh" to a "wow, interesting".
"Based on white and black U.S.-born adults ... Asians and Hispanics, who would make Americans appear even shorter, are excluded to better illuminate how the U.S. compares to Western Europeans."
Turns it from a "well, duh" to a "wow, interesting".
Arabs/North Africans are also shorter. But I don't know how many the US has.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd always heard that mixed race children are a bit taller (and smarter?) on average than their parents. I wonder if it's true?
[deleted]
The reason why the Dutch are tall is they have less of a preference for shorter women:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/08/scientists-try...
I used to work for an ISP in Amsterdam. I sent a network engineer to the US. He had never even had a passport before. When he returned, he told me: “I used to have a stereotype of Americans as short, fat people. Now I know it is a fact” (he was 1m95/6’6”)
I used to work for an ISP in Amsterdam. I sent a network engineer to the US. He had never even had a passport before. When he returned, he told me: “I used to have a stereotype of Americans as short, fat people. Now I know it is a fact” (he was 1m95/6’6”)
http://facebook.com/l.php?u=