What’s really cute are short FAT people.
Like a talking medicine ball.
Jeez, How tall do you have to be before this higher intelligence effect kicks in?
Snort - that cracked me right up.
What elfbabe said.
Also, please know that the word “explain” when used statistically does not mean anything normative. It’s a pretty neutral term.
I’ve got a short, smart kid, and I know plenty of short brilliant people. That doesn’t mean their findings are bullshit, or that one should react with bitterness or hysteria. We have a scientific literacy problem in this country – and the media doesn’t help a bit. Now THAT’s something to be bitter about.
Not that anyone gives a rat’s ass what I think… but this finding is credible to me from an expectations standpoint. I haven’t read the thing, but I’ve seen the way people treat taller kids. Tall kids are often mistaken for being older than they are. Therefore in casual (and even not-so-casual) encounters, they are more likely to be treated that way. People will use bigger words, more complex grammar in talking to them. They will expect these kids to know more and do more than their peers of similar age (but shorter stature). There are a whole bunch of direct and indirect ways taller kids may get pushed and prodded to develop sooner, and in ways that pay off in intellectual and career successes later in life.
This is probably just one very small piece of the explanation, but it’s enough to make sense to me.
Well, I disagree with everything you wrote, but Ill’ do it more politely than you did.
And remember when I said
I mean did you even read that part before you accused me of nor understand statistics?
And of course the Bible has nothing to do with Case and Paxson’s argument. I never asserted that it did. I was just using it to show that such discrimination has been around for a long long time. I thought that was rather obvious, but for the record, just for you Polamalu, I do not think Case and paxson wrote the book of Leviticus, nor do they refer to it in their work.
And I never said the authors claim that no one discriminates against short people. That would be your straw-man. I said they provide a rationalization for wage discrimination when they said
Someone else took exception with me because they felt the inclusion of the word “pure” excused the authors of the first part of their statement. I disagree. It seems more like a vague hedge to me. And what “explanations” are they refering to? A cite would have been nice.
Oh good. I’m short but funny-looking and ill-tempered- maybe there’s still hope for me 
Especially if you can offload that ring of power your people have been toting around. Oh, you’re so cute I wish I could put you in my breast pocked and carry you around with me all day.
Doesn’t that assume that intelligence has anything to do with earning power, though? I mean the measurable, standardized-test intelligence. In my experience, the skills required for higher-level jobs have nothing to do with the intelligence these tests measure. If you want to make VP, yout SAT scores are not really going to help.
I’ve lost the ring of power somewhere in my car. That explains why my car sometimes seems to be invisible to other drivers on the freeways.
Hehe, wee folk and their shenanigans. Hush now Captain Lance Murdoch and get back to work.
I seem to do OK with just 6 inches. But they’re not putrid, so maybe that explains it.
Damn straight! 
I think that Case and Paxson are onto something. I’m pretty tall, and whenever I hit my head on a low ceiling, I say “Ow! That smarts!”
Lance, people have tried explaining the study to you, but you refuse to get it. Maybe it’s just over your head.
Run! It’s Smartzilla!
Bet you tell a lot of guys “Hey! My eyes are up here!”
A lot of guys might be just tall enough to be used as a toy. Her eyes might be the least of their problems.
What happened? Did you lose your erection and stand up?
They might have even worse problems if they incorrectly answer the question “Hey, does this tarp make my ass look big?”
Yes
kids are dumb.
Uhhh, but you still just aren’t getting it. People can claim all they want they you don’t need to be a genius to be a CEO, but honestly, how many doctors or engineers do you know that have IQ’s of 90? They are not saying that it’s okay to pay short people less because they’re short, they’re saying that it’s okay to pay less intelligent people less because they’re less intelligent. Because shortness correlates with a lack of intelligence, it makes sense that, on average, short people will earn less.
The practice that they are NOT defending (and that you’re constructing a straw-man of) is saying, “okay, we’ve got two applicants with IQ’s of 125. One is 5’2” and the other is 6’2". Let’s offer the tall one $100K a year and shorty $50K."
The point of the study is that differences in intelligence seem to account for the variance in incomes and such unfair discrimination is not taking place.
Do you understand the study? I mean, do you really? I can get you a PDF copy if you want to e-mail me from my profile.
Of course now that we have a week of “SHORT PEOPLE ARE STUPID” headlines people are probably going to start offering the shorty half.
Except that nobody gets paid more because of their intelligence, at least not any intelligence that you can measure on a standardized test. Your engineer might be a genius, but that’s not how you make a lot of money. The VP that he answers to is probably not a genius, but makes twice as much.
I would disagree with this statement, standardized tests are very good and indicated a person’s genral intelligence, comprehension ad ability to reason. Engineers are not the only smart people and I know many engineers who make a healthy living.