I was fed well so nutrition wouldn’t be a factor in my development; my height is a genetic inheritance.
Just the same though, poor nutrition would be linked to low income families more often than other factors (such as just letting kids eat junk food whenever they want instead of building a healthy, balanced diet for them), and it seems to me that poverty would then be the correlation, not height.
I remember a psychology lecturer (‘professor’ for Merkins) whom told us some of the dangers of using statistical significance to “prove” anything. His favourite study that illustrated this had been published in the American Journal of Behavioural Psychology (I think). This study had found statistical significance between people who saw frogs in the Rorscharch inkblock tests and people who thought you could be orally impregnated.
Yes, but that is just one anecdotal datapoint. Most short people are dumb. Those that aren’t tend to be funny looking and ill-tempered.
Waverly makes a valid point. And did anyone read the study out of Columbia last week that discovered that it’s fun to pick short people up and put them on shelves and other places they couldn’t extricate themselves from, and listen to them whine with their squeaky little short-people voices?
This could be a scam to relieve tall stupid people of their money, or possibly some sort of followup meta-study. Does the payment page ask for your height?
If short people really do earn less money, I suspect the reasons are mostly cultural. But the study doesn’t bother me. Odds are that I’m both shorter and smarter than the authors of the paper, and that’s good enough for me. 
(read the following in an excessively cheerful voice, like one you might use to congratulate a slow child on not soiling their pants all day)
It sure is! I’m so proud of little folks like you who don’t let it keep them down! Haha, except literally. Anyway, I think it’s very brave of you to go on, knowing that not only will we beat you guys in footraces, but also tests of intelligence!
I guess I wandered right into that one. Still, another nice thing about being short is that when you let yourself down, you don’t have far to go.
I seem to remember a study that showed that short people live longer.
We’ll see who laughs last.
The tall, rich, smart people who die in comfort and are buried with a dignified, expensive funeral or the short, poor, dumb people who die in a ditch after their meagre pensions run out because they’ve outlived the amount of money they put away, and are chucked in the forest for the wolves? 
<d&r>
Oh, poor hungry wolves! Such small portions! Next time, make sure to put out two short people to make it up to the wolves, OK?
This has to be the dumbest post I’ve ever seen. I finally registered as a guest to point out how stupid this is. For the record, I am a 5’7" (rounded up slightly…) male.
For those of you who didn’t read the paper, or, if you’re like Captain Lance Murdoch, don’t have the reading comprehension skills to figure it out, this study is a response to other studies.
For these studies, the thought “correlation != causation” would be more appropriate. They generate headlines like “Tall People Earn Average Of $789 Per Inch More Than Shorter People” and make the conclusion that this is based on discrimination. This study is a brilliant use of statistics and science that refutes this claim, or at the very least explains that the effect of discrimination is exaggerated.
The OP uses diversionary tactics, such as strawmen. (“The paper attempts to rationalize discrimination against the short” – note that the very sentence the OP quoted said "an alternative to explanations for the height premium that rely on pure discrimination or social stigma against shorter individuals.) The paper explains that when cognitive ability is controlled for, the height premium disappears on their dataset. I don’t think the authors are prepared to claim that no one ever discriminates against short people.
Then, he diverts into a criticism of Leviticus. I think it’s safe to say that has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the study.
Finally, he suggests that the study is not valid because he is 5’6 and thinks himself to be intelligent. Though I could joke and say that your complete misunderstanding of a statistical argument demonstrates your lack of intelligence, I won’t.
As I continue to wade through this mess of a post, I see that there is more trash that I would have to work through to do a full point-by-point rebuttal of this verbal diarrhea. Unfortunately, I don’t really have the patience for that. It’s safe to say that the OP’s insecurities have made him completely unreasonable on this issue.
I don’t understand the confusion.
The brains of short people are closer to the center of the earth than those of tall people. The extra gravitational force compresses the brains of the short, squeezing out some brain cells.
Duh!
-P
Thank you. I was thinking of just this response in my mind when I read yours. The study is by no means saying that shortness causes stupidity, only that short people tend to be less intelligent (by who knows what mechanism, possibly nutrition as suggested by others) and that this difference in intelligence fully accounts for the difference in earning within the data studied by the authors.
Please, I beg you to stick around. Even The Dope is finding itself rather overrun by ignorance these days.
Didn’t I say that stuff, like, half a thread ago?
I’m willing to contribute… lessee… what do I have in the couch here… $0.73 and a ball of lint to the remedial science education of Captain Lance Murdoch. And while we’re at it, anyone else who doesn’t understand that “greater intelligence is generally correlated with greater height” doesn’t mean “short people are dumb” and certainly doesn’t mean “taller groups are smarter than shorter groups” or “you, personally, are dumb, shorty”.
If you’re going to get all upset about the height-intelligence correlation, don’t blame Case and Paxson. It seems to be pretty well established by many different researchers. Note the paper abstracts here and here, with titles like (emphasis mine) “Genetic contributions to the association between height and intelligence: evidence from Dutch twin data from childhood to middle age” and “Resolving the genetic and environmental sources of the correlation between height and intelligence: a study of nearly 2600 Norwegian male twin pairs.” See? The question isn’t even whether they’re correlated, but why. And that’s not even what Case and Paxson are trying to do - they’re attempting to take two fairly well-established phenomena (correlation between greater height and greater intelligence and correlation between greater height and greater wages) and figure out how they’re related to one another - that is, how much of the wage difference is due to things other than intelligence, like unfair discrimination against short people.
If anybody wants to read the full paper, I seem to have found (via my university library’s journal subscriptions) a page that will let me send a PDF copy to whatever email address I’d like. Email me (it’s in my profile) and I’ll put your address in.
No, the brains of short people are actually larger and denser, pushing down on their spines, thus compressing them and depriving them of height. This study is a conspiracy on the part of short people to continue the ruse that we are not as smart and make less money, as a way to cause guilt and pity on the part of taller people, causing them to be nicer to us. Also, we’re cuter.
~Rubystreak, 60’ tall and a SUPERGENIUS
Damn. Just when Princeton is finally ranked #1 all by itself.
Well I guess we know why you’re falling behind on the death pool this year, Lance. 
Heh heh heh…you little fuckers are so cute when you get pissed off. C’mere and stand right next to my armchair, 'kay? I wanna use the top of your teeny little flat head to hold my beer. Keep quiet and I’ll let you hold the remote.