Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Short People Got No Reason To Live
Economists have long been irritated by the weird
fact that tall people have better jobs and earn more money. Many
explanations have been offered, various forms of social and
individual discrimination first among them. But two Princeton economists
disagree: "In this paper, we offer a simpler explanation: On
average, taller people earn more because they are smarter."
For both men and women, an increase in height of four inches is associated with an earnings premium of approximately 10 percent. ...An American man who is 6 feet 2 inches tall is 3 percentage points more likely to be an executive and 2 percentage points more likely to be a professional than is a man who stands 5 feet 10.
Childhood scores on intelligence tests show a correlation between height and cognitive ability, and this remains true throughout life, they report.
Yet more evidence that Edmund Burke was right: Prejudices can be useful--if short people are being discriminated against in the job market, it's only because (statistically speaking) they're dumb as a box of rocks.
For musical accompaniment to the post (and an explanation of the title), click here.
|9.6.06 @ 12:05PM|#
Correlation does not prove causation. Maybe tall people tend to have tall parent who are therefore wealthier on average. Those parents send their kids to more prestigious schools where the teachers focus on the skills that standardized tests measure.
|9.6.06 @ 12:07PM|#
uhh, is it possible that if you're short it could be indicative that you didn't grow up in the best (most nourishing for the body) environment, and therefore likely didn't grow up in a mind-nourishing environment as well? In other words, I sense this as a function of nuture, not nature.
Timothy|9.6.06 @ 12:08PM|#
Yay, another uncited post from KMW! Hey, at least there's a link to Randy Newman in there, so as the uncultured masses might understand the oh-so-clever title!
|9.6.06 @ 12:09PM|#
Katherine,
You appear to be new here, but, in the future, you may want to let
people figure out pop-culture post references on their own. It's
more fun that way. Plus, there are certain people on this board
(those people are, by the way, probably short) whose only joy in
life comes from identifying certain obscure, useless references in
H&R posts. Who are you to deny them that small, vanishing
joy?
On a related note, Family Guy's Randy Newman impersonation is one
of the best they've ever done. F'n hi-larious.
BTW, I'm 6'3", bitches. And to all of you short folks, here's a
suggestion to boost your IQ: get platform clogs, spike your hair
up, wear vertical pinstripes, and get a really small dog to walk
around. Let's see which of you mental weaklings can get your
jollies by identifying THAT reference... ;->
|9.6.06 @ 12:09PM|#
I'm 74 inches of towering intellect. No, let me assure you,
science has proved this to be true.
From now on, each poster must disclose his height. If it turns out
that the poster is one of the little people, then his arguments
shall be immediately discounted, discarded, and dismissed.
Ah, the soothing sensations of megalomania.
Timothy|9.6.06 @ 12:11PM|#
Oh, and by the way, here's a link to the NBER site with the abstract. Greg Mankiw blogged this a couple of weeks back. Man, that took me all of five seconds to find, shocking.
|9.6.06 @ 12:15PM|#
Lighten up about the lack of linkage, Timothy. KM-W can't help it if she's only 4'10".
|9.6.06 @ 12:20PM|#
"As early as age 3 � before schooling has had a chance to play a
role"
Education can still play a minor role, since some couples start
drilling their kids before they can walk, but I think Ayn_Randian's
hypothesis makes the most sense. Pre-natal and infant nutrition can
affect both intelligence and height.
|9.6.06 @ 12:21PM|#
Tall people aren't actually smarter, they just have a better
view of the answer sheets of the shorter people around them. This
lets them pick the answer that is picked most by the smarter,
shorter kids.
So on average, they get higher scores.
|9.6.06 @ 12:21PM|#
Let those of us with superior height endeavor to pat the heads
of our shorter brethren in an act of condescension each and every
day.
Ave Homo celsus!
|9.6.06 @ 12:22PM|#
In other words, I sense this as a function of nuture, not
nature.
Sense away! "Sensing" is a lot easier than studying or researching,
and you can always get the answer you want: your "religious
beliefs."
(PS: You're incorrect.)
Here's the paper's abstract:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12466
Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market
Outcomes
Anne Case, Christina Paxson
NBER Working Paper No. 12466
Issued in August 2006
NBER Program(s): AG CH HC HE LS
---- Abstract -----
It has long been recognized that taller adults hold jobs of higher
status and, on average, earn more than other workers. A large
number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain the
association between height and earnings. In developed countries,
researchers have emphasized factors such as self esteem, social
dominance, and discrimination. In this paper, we offer a simpler
explanation: On average, taller people earn more because they are
smarter. As early as age 3 � before schooling has had a chance to
play a role � and throughout childhood, taller children perform
significantly better on cognitive tests. The correlation between
height in childhood and adulthood is approximately 0.7 for both men
and women, so that tall children are much more likely to become
tall adults. As adults, taller individuals are more likely to
select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced
verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence, for which
they earn handsome returns. Using four data sets from the US and
the UK, we find that the height premium in adult earnings can be
explained by childhood scores on cognitive tests. Furthermore, we
show that taller adults select into occupations that have higher
cognitive skill requirements and lower physical skill
demands.
+++
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/
"Social Consequences of Group Differences in Cognitive
Ability"
IQ�s predictive value ranges widely, depending on the outcome in
question. For example, when averaged over several years,
performance on standardized tests of academic achievement
correlates about as highly with IQ as two IQ tests do with each
other (over .8 on a scale of -1.0 to 1.0). In contrast,
correlations with IQ are closer to .6-.7 for school marks, years of
education completed, and longevity. They are about .5 with prestige
level of occupation, .3 to .4 with income (the correlations rising
with age), and .2 with law-abidingness.
|9.6.06 @ 12:33PM|#
flemur, way to miss my entire point, elucidated even better by jtuf. Neonatal and infant care is almost certainly the factor here, but you can't help if you're short and missed some of those important words in your rush to try to prove me wrong.
|9.6.06 @ 12:36PM|#
So the coaches that were intimidating teachers with "how could our star basketball player be getting bad grades?" were right all along?
|9.6.06 @ 12:41PM|#
Now I know why economics is called "the dismal science."
PS: Five feet, six inches. I always suspected the world was
conspiring against me.
|9.6.06 @ 12:52PM|#
OK, but what's the relation between intelligence and penis
size
It has to be the smaller the penis, the smarter you are.
If it's the other way around, then FSM really does have a sick
sense of humor
|9.6.06 @ 12:54PM|#
I didn't read the article, so if I'm being an idiot with this,
please tell me. I couldn't find in the abstract or the version
linked to Arts and Letters Daily a couple of days ago how the
authors of the study defined "tall." Is it "taller than average for
the group to which each person belongs," or is it "taller than the
average worldwide?" If the latter, then are Swedes and Masai
actually smarter than the Japanese?
I'm 5'7", which is 3 inches taller than the average for American
women, but I'm sleepy and lazy today, which completely cancels out
my innate advantage.
fyodor|9.6.06 @ 12:58PM|#
Hmmm, I was tall for my age until age 14 when I stopped growing
and everyone shot past me. Was I a smart kid but a dumb
adult?
DON'T ANSWER THAT!
|9.6.06 @ 1:29PM|#
F. Lemur:
I absolutely love your posts!! You act all condescending, but your
posts aren't quite as solid as you think. For example, you deride
Ayn Randian for expressing a hunch (clearly labelled as such) that
this issue might be one of nurture rather than nature. You go so
far as to cite the very paper that doesn't resolve the issue. Sure,
the paper says that tall people are smarter, but it doesn't say
why they are smarter. It doesn't say why cognitive tests
in early years "explain" the issue. And the study doesn't control
for the nurture side of it, and many social science surveys fail to
do.
|9.6.06 @ 1:42PM|#
Lamar,
We're smarter because we can see more of the world from our
superior vantage points. Why else? God loves us more, too, which is
why our heads are closer to heaven.
To add insult to injury, I believe that penis size generally
correlates positively with height, which generally correlates
positively with intelligence. Which may explain why the average
height of humans is increasing. It's not nutrition, it's natural
selection!
|9.6.06 @ 1:52PM|#
And to all of you short folks, here's a suggestion to boost
your IQ: get platform clogs, spike your hair up, wear vertical
pinstripes, and get a really small dog to walk around. Let's see
which of you mental weaklings can get your jollies by identifying
THAT reference... ;->
Evan!
Bart wants to be Fallout Boy.
|9.6.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Lamar,
We're smarter because we can see more of the world from our
superior vantage points. Why else? God loves us more, too, which is
why our heads are closer to heaven.
To add insult to injury, I believe that penis size generally
correlates positively with height, which in turn generally
correlates positively with intelligence. Which may explain why the
average height of humans is increasing. It's not nutrition, it's
natural selection!
Ah, hubris. It's not just for breakfast any more!
The Wine Commonsewer|9.6.06 @ 2:24PM|#
they're dumb as a box of rocks.
that's funny
Or maybe they're dumb as a bag of hammers.
My ex flame (four long years) was short. And blond to boot. She
really hated Randy Newman for that song. And, come to think of it,
she was about as dumb as a box of rocks.
|9.6.06 @ 2:28PM|#
I think taller people are "smarter" simply because when they
were in school, it was easier for them to see what was on the
chalkboard than it was for the short kids.
Although I prefer Dono Treply's suggestion that taller people who
are taking a test just have an advanage at being able to see and
copy off the answers of the other people around them.
I'm yet another 5'9" guy, BTW. Seems to be lots of us.
It has to be the smaller the penis, the smarter you
are.
This is undoubtedly true. In situations where my penis gets bigger,
I definitely get stupider.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.6.06 @ 2:39PM|#
I was taught in school that tall white males ruled the US
because there was a conspiracy to steamroll the swarthier
complected short people.
And now you say it's natural selection? No sociology teacher worth
a nickel would buy that.
|9.6.06 @ 2:47PM|#
Notice the general shortness of the more aggressive historical figures. Really, I think a pogrom is in order. For the tall children.
Paul|9.6.06 @ 2:53PM|#
Taller people are smarter because they 'stay above it',
man.
Oh good lord that's bad. I can't do it. I can't hit post... I'll
have my shorter wife hit post.
Old News|9.6.06 @ 2:57PM|#
Apparently nobody around here, including Ms. Ward and her online
editor, reads Slate. They did this same article six days ago:
http://www.slate.com/id/2148759/
Perhaps each offers something differnt? Yes, Slate author Joel
Waldfogel waits until his second line of copy before dropping the
Randy Newman reference, "Short people got no reason to live."
Either this post was really poorly researched (hello Google!), or
Ms. Ward knowingly failed to give credit where credit's due.
|9.6.06 @ 2:57PM|#
Notice the general shortness of the more aggressive
historical figures.
I think it is also worthwhile to point out that when people are
angry or upset with other people, people often say that they are
being short with them.
(and aside to TWC, what the heck kind of school did you go to?)
|9.6.06 @ 3:10PM|#
I thought the earnings disparity was due to the height minimums for NFL QBs( under 6'3 you might as well play Arena League or become a Slash) and NBA SGs ( less than 6'4? You better learn the point, buddy. Or move to Europe).
|9.6.06 @ 3:13PM|#
Old news:
This is a blog, not an online magazine. As you know, many of the
"stories" here are just links to outsides sources. Nothing wrong
with that, that's a blog. Thought you'd like to know that there is
a difference, and there is nothing improper about this post, except
of course, for the 35th comment. Why that's you,
silly!
|9.6.06 @ 3:18PM|#
The real reason that tall people excel is that they don't have to spend as much time avoiding being trampled.
|9.6.06 @ 4:07PM|#
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution blogged this study a couple
of weeks ago and yesterday in an aside to
this post mentioned another study showing that people born in
late winter are smarter. Recalling his earlier post on
left-handedness prompted him to ponder the
smarty-trifecta:
I can only imagine how smart tall, left-handed people, born in late winter ... must be...
And no, I can assure you that my credulous faith in these studies
has absolutely nothing to do with my being a 6'2" lefty born in
March. :)
|9.6.06 @ 4:27PM|#
I have a cunning plan to solve the immigration "crisis". Post signs at our borders that say, "Must be at least this tall [six feet?] to enter the United States of America".
|9.6.06 @ 4:40PM|#
Huh?
Did KMW put the link to the paper without an addendum specifically
saying that her original post "forgot" the link?
If it wasn't there in the first place, it's kinda bad form to now
try to slip the link under people's noses.
You hear that, KMW, it's bad form, because no one likes to be
snookered.
At least this isn't as bad as the sophistry of arguing that I
should be happy that Iran will get The Bomb because then history
will "get more interesting."
Also, it is very interesting that KMW doesn't have the guts to even
mention that she slipped up since that means at least she would be
holding herself accountable, so as the Romans would say:
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
|9.6.06 @ 4:51PM|#
Mothers (5'1") and cousins (4'10")who are considered "SHORT" by some people are always SMART! This conclusion was reached at a scientific meeting held in Annapolis, MD today!
|9.6.06 @ 5:02PM|#
The best 'explanation' seems to have been already rejected;
"short people" consist of two types - those whose height is
genetically determined and are otherwise "normal"(including
"normal" "intelligence"), and those malnourished in utero or
childhood(and stunted in height and brain). The trouble comes when
"tall people" try to put them all in the second group.
Actually, the second type could be a small fraction of "short
people" if the deviation is great enough to skew the average.
|9.6.06 @ 5:06PM|#
NOTICE:
It is no longer sufficient to correct mistakes. Frank A now
requires a written apology.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.6.06 @ 5:23PM|#
High, I'm just talking about bonehead sociology and other
humanities classes required in the CSU system.
That one prof made a big point out of how tall and white all the
founding fathers were and another one harped on the tall and white
presidents. It was an impressive case. I think that he was the same
guy who used the Who's Running America series to make the
case that we're all controlled by big corporations with
interlocking boards of directors.
I don't buy off on much of that kind of stuff. I'm not even sure
that I buy off on the whole idea that tall, attractive people get
cut slack, are brighter, and make more money.
I do, however, believe my grandfather's observation that a good
big man can whip a good little man every day of the week.
Which is exactly why guns came in handy.
|9.6.06 @ 5:31PM|#
Short people are dumped on their entire lives - it probably
starts long before school. I have little doubt that the tall learn
their "superiority" at a very early age.
-- Short, intelligent, AND left-handed
|9.6.06 @ 5:41PM|#
I wonder what the Asians might think about all this. Silly me,
they're SO STUPID and couldn't possibly understand all that
difficult math and science.
PS: On a more serious note, does the study cover all races, or does
it segregate the races and measure height within them? Are the
Dutch then "naturally" smarter than, say, the Japanese?
Oh, and Timothy, how 'bout you link to Greg Mankiw's blog post,
sweetie darling? Link and link alike, I say!
|9.6.06 @ 5:41PM|#
So, why did only one of the 5 National Merit Finalists, or the
remaining Semi-Finalist in my High School graduating class top out
at over 6 feet?
I'd also like to see the data broken out by age cohort. Average
height has increased over the years. When I was 18 I was dead
average height for an American male. Some decades later, I am now
officially "short" by an inch or two. I expect I'm still "average"
for my birth year.
Kevin
|9.6.06 @ 5:42PM|#
Good to see Princeton economists putting their time to good use. When I was in second grade I was convinced that only kids that could run fast could be popular. Maybe they could look into that for me.
|9.6.06 @ 6:46PM|#
NOTICE:
It is no longer sufficient to correct mistakes. Frank A now
requires a written apology.
Comment by: Lamar at September 6, 2006 05:06 PM
No, a slavish apology is NOT required.
What would be good form is to say, "EDIT: I goofed to put a link to
the story, so here it is. Hat tip: ReaderX" Shazam!
Done.
Timothy even linked to the abstract of the paper, and yet she still
hasn't mentioned that she changed her post.
Considering the intellectual mendacity of her Nagin piece and now
this...this is shaping up to be a very unfortunate pattern.
Charles|9.6.06 @ 6:50PM|#
Isaac Newton and James Madison were both pretty short, but they
were smarter than likely anyone that any of us will ever meet in
person.
Also, I can't think of a good way to work Larry Summers into
this.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.6.06 @ 7:56PM|#
Shaq may be a genius but if brains were dynamite Kobe couldn't blow his nose.
|9.6.06 @ 8:34PM|#
'scuse me for just hittin' an' runnin', but aren't jews smart?
And orientals?
Are they not generally height-challenged?
As a fan of complexity, I enjoy these kinds of inquiries.
|9.6.06 @ 8:44PM|#
"Must be at least this tall [six feet?] to enter the United
States of America".
"If you are not this tall, you may not go on this ride."
Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is not to keep anyone
out. Our mission is to make the USA a "ride" again!
|9.6.06 @ 9:13PM|#
I suppose Shaq could possibly not be exceptionally bright since generalities would be true of groups, but not necessarily of individuals. Which brings me to a place, a place in the Salt lake City area, known as "Hobbitville." It is a community of, well...isn't the right word...dwarfs? Anyway, they must be the stupidest people on God's green earth, I don't know how they make it. You would think being that short would be challenge enough, but the fact that they have to be so stupid, well, that's just not fair.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.6.06 @ 11:02PM|#
Ruthless, as I recall the post-war Japanese made tremendous gains in average height in the space of a generation or two once they started getting proper nutrition. No source cites, just something plunked in a memory hole long ago.
|9.7.06 @ 12:38AM|#
Remember that short historical figures need to be measured in
standard deviations from the norm as it existed then. NYT
recently had a huge article on the height and health of current
folks in developed areas who dwarf their great grandparents'
generation.
On another note, at 6' I sometimes feel short, but now I realize
that I have crushed my enemies, had them driven before me and heard
the lamentations of their women. At least compared to you
ewoks.
|9.7.06 @ 2:24AM|#
I can only imagine how smart tall, left-handed people, born
in late winter ... must be...
Hot damn! Tall (for a woman), southpaw, and born on the last day of
winter/first day of spring!
If the birth date hypothesis is true, then that may make me either
a remarkable genius or, alternately, a pitiable moron -- you make
the call! (...to yourselves! keep it to yourselves!)
|9.7.06 @ 3:02AM|#
Anyway, the birth date hypothesis makes sense to me: All the
smart kids spent the fall and winter napping in a snug, insulated
womb instead of wasting the brainpower of their precious
early-infant months shivering in their handknit booties and warm
designer baby asshats.
By the same line of thinking, the dumber kids would be born in late
fall. At least one of my ex-boyfriends would be anecdotal evidence
in favor of this explanation.
|9.7.06 @ 4:17AM|#
rhywun: Short people are dumped on their
entire lives - it probably starts long before school. I have little
doubt that the tall learn their "superiority" at a very early
age.
I've seen a more detailed study that showed the opposite of that.
By splitting people into four groups they judged the affect of
being tall/short as a child and tall/short as an adult. They
discovered that it was how tall you were as a child that mattered.
Basically (and I can attest to this from my own experience) in any
given situation short children were helped more by adults than tall
children were. Short children learned to run to authority when
there was a problem, tall children learned that authority never
helped them and therefore they became more self-reliant. This
approach help them in later life, even if they stopped growing and
were short as an adult.
|9.7.06 @ 9:51AM|#
Neonatal and infant care is almost certainly the factor
here,
Nope, you're wrong again: apparently you're ignorant of the many
intelligence studies involving twins, siblings, East Asian kids
who've been literally starved as infants, adoption, etc., etc.,
etc.
You act all condescending,
Correct. It amuses me when people have strong opinions on subjects
about which they're obviously quite uninformed. Flat-earthers who
think they can personally see everything they need to know.
but your posts aren't quite as solid as you think. For example,
you deride Ayn Randian for expressing a hunch (clearly labelled as
such) that this issue might be one of nurture rather than
nature.
Why should I not laugh at 'a hunch' when there's already lots of
solid evidence which shows that the hunch is just nonsense?
It tells me that the huncher is just egotistical and mentally
lazy.
You go so far as to cite the very paper that doesn't resolve
the issue.
I went so far as to reprint the abstract of the paper in question;
is that not more interesting and appropriate than references to
some stupid song?
Sure, the paper says that tall people are smarter, but it
doesn't say why they are smarter. It doesn't say why cognitive
tests in early years "explain" the issue. And the study doesn't
control for the nurture side of it, and many social science surveys
fail to do.
Many other studies have already addressed and largely resolved
these issues (IQ/intelligence is about 80% genetic and there's no
measurable 'neonatal and infant care' effect in modern societies
other than some FAS-type effects on an individual basis), but it's
not my job to educate you; if you're actually interested in the
subject, you might start by reading the papers at the .edu URL I
provided; they're not original research so as much as summaries and
policy recommendations, but they contain hundreds of references to
the original research.
*If* you're actually interested, that is; but I must assume that
you're not interested, or you'd already be aware of the available
information.
|9.7.06 @ 10:55AM|#
Science is iterative. Researchers form a hypothesis, then they
review the literature, then they update their hypothesis and
repeat. This keeps going until they are certain enough in their
hypothesis to justify spending years collecting data to reject or
fail to reject it. You cited previous research to back your
argument. Could you please link to it so I could evaluate that
literature. I did a quick search on google scholar for intelligence
and genetics just to read a bit more background knowledge. This
abstract
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9549239&dopt=Citation
) was very informative. It said:
�
Hum Biol. 1998 Apr;70(2):257-79.
Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and
special mental abilities.
Bouchard TJ Jr.
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
55455-0344, USA.
I review representative biometric studies of adult twins and
adoptees that have been used to generate estimates of genetic and
environmental influence on intelligence (IQ) and special mental
abilities. The various studies converge on a heritability estimate
between 0.60 and 0.80 for IQ. Estimates of common environmental
influence from the same studies are near zero. Studies of twins
reared together and studies of unrelated individuals reared
together yield sizable estimates of common family environmental
influence in childhood but also demonstrate that this influence
dissipates with age and approaches zero in adulthood. Twin studies
of the major special mental abilities (verbal, spatial, perceptual
speed and accuracy, memory) yield heritability estimates of about
0.50 and modest estimates of common environmental influence.
�
I guess 80% is the top end of the range for the heritability
estimate. Although a more time consuming literature review could
prove otherwise.
|9.7.06 @ 12:18PM|#
For a nice lay review of the issue you can go here.
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html
It would indicate that Mr. F Le Mur is a little too pesimistic
regarding the role of environment, but genetics is clearly the
biggest factor.
" Herrstein and Murray (1994) argue that low intelligence causes
low SES, rather than the other way around. So, according to these
authors, while SES is correlated with IQ, it should be considered a
consequence rather than a cause.
However, adoption studies seem to indicate that SES has a strong,
causal effect on intelligence, e.g.:
"Well-controlled adoption studies done in France have found that
transferring an infant from a family having low socioeconomic
status (SES) to a home where parents have high SES improves
childhood IQ scores by 12 to 16 points or about one standard
deviation, which is considered a large effect size in psychological
research." Wahlsten (1997, p. 76).
Several recent US studies have demonstrated improvements in
children's IQ's by improving the lives of infants in disadvantaged
circumstances.
These studies employed random assignment of children and families
to treatment and control conditions.
These studies selected families with:
� low parental IQ
� low parental education
� minimal financial resources
Experimental group received:
� enriched, educational day care outside the home every weekday
from 3 months to start of schooling
Control group received:
� nutritional supplements and pediatric medical care or crisis
intervention but no educational day care
Even though the children returned to their home environment every
day and spent holidays and weekends with their families (mostly
unemployed, single mothers) in poverty-stricken neighbourhoods,
there were large gains in IQ; almost as much as in the French
studies previously mentioned.
Furthermore, the mean IQ of the enriched groups appeared to be
quite typical of healthy American children. These children
continued to show higher IQ scores than controls at age 12
(Wahlsten, 1997). Of course, in these American studies, SES and
education were being manipulated. There is of course a strong
correlation between SES and education in both directions."
One of side issues involving the comparison of races on
intelligence is the artificial nature (genetically) of the racial
categories used. For instance, genetic variability in people with
dark skin on the contintent of Africa encompasses almost the entire
range of variability in humans.
I would imagine the same could be said for short people.
|9.7.06 @ 12:21PM|#
A meta analysis of the impact of adoption...
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/bul1312301.pdf
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245