Libertarianism

Tall People Vote Conservative, Says New Study

Could it be that taller people actually tend to be more libertarian?

|

TallShortShannonFaganDreamstime
Shannon Fagan/Dreamstime

Being the in 99th percentile in stature for American males, I was mildly intrigued by the new study, "Height, Income and Voting." The study finds that in Britain "taller individuals are more likely to support the Conservative party, support conservative policies, and vote conservative." Specifically, the researchers report that a one-inch increase in height increases support for Conservatives by 0.6 percent. It is a well-known in the social science literature that taller people tend to make more money. The researchers here also report that people who make more money also tend to support conservative policies. So being tall and well-off is a Conservative double whammy.

Let's look a bit deeper inot how the researchers defined "conservative." The dependent variables parsed in the study are (1) "Private enterprise is the best way to solve the UK's economic problems"; (2) "Major public services and industries ought to be in state ownership"; (3) "It is the government's responsibility to provide a job for everyone who wants one"; (4) "The government should place an upper limit on the amount of money that any one person can make"; and (5) "Voted for Conservative Party in 2005 General Election".

So the only "conservative" policy evaluated in the study was whether the respondents endorsed "private enterprise" over various state interventions in the economy. Based on this data, another reasonable interpretation could be that taller people tend to be more intelligent and therefore actually are more likely to be libertarian.

Disclosure: Some of my best friends stand below the median height for Americans. And no, I do not play basketball.

NEXT: Clinton Makes History, Intelligence Officials Would Like to Keep Trump in the Dark, Conventions Finally Over: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So this explains Robert Reich.

    1. w: Nothing can explain Robert Reich.

      1. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $16000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… Read More This Website… http://www.Trends88.com

    2. I was once discussing an economic issue with lefty colleague who kept citing some Reich article, and my “but that midget has never been right about anything” comment was not well received. The m-word and all.

    3. I’m shorter than the average American woman (I’m a man) :(.

      But at least I’m taller than Robert Reich.

      Incidentally, our shortest president was James Madison (5’4), and I’d say, except for the whole slavery thing, he was one of the more libertarian-minded presidents.

    4. Yeah, well, I sat about ten feet from Milton Freidman at a conference. Not tall. David isn’t, either. And I say this as a tall person.

  2. 99th percentile?! What is that, like 7 ft.?

    1. Apparently, just 6-5.

      1. G: Correct. Just reporting the results from height percentile calculator to which I link.

        1. Those numbers seem off. It says there should only be 1 in 38 people taller than me, but I see a far higher rate of people in my day to day life that beat that. What’s the regional variation in median height look like?

          1. 1 in 5 shorter than me.

            I have no reason to live.

            1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

            2. Don’t worry, that number’s wrong, it says 1 in 1 people are shorter than me, and that’s clearly not true.

              1. Good, I was hoping for something to cancel out the smoking.

            3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6I2NrguAs

              The reason I hope Randy Newman burns in hell.

          2. Those numbers seem off. It says there should only be 1 in 38 people taller than me, but I see a far higher rate of people in my day to day life that beat that.

            Hang around in places with a lot of white people?

      2. Sounds about right.

  3. OMG, so triggered right now.

  4. Being the in 99th percentile in stature for American males

    Well, I’m not. And the world was created for people of my height.

    1. g: Yes. For example, economy seats on commercial airliners are torture devices!

      1. My partner is 6’4″, so I know enough about it.

      2. You freaks of nature deserve it for taking up so much extra space.

      3. And sports stadiums, clothing, cars, etc. Guys tell me all the time they wish they were tall. But it’s not what it’s cracked up to be. Still, I’d rather be abnormally tall than short.

      4. It always feels reassuring to remember that the largest size crash test dummy they use is like 6’2″ 240

    2. I love being on the low-end of height/width. I can fit most anywhere. So what if I’m poor and the hottest babes won’t even look at me.

      1. Hottest babes? I thought you were teh ghey? Or can that word refer to men as well?

        1. I was actually referring to these.

  5. That’s why those small “liberals” look up to those conservatives ๐Ÿ™‚

  6. We know how stupid people vote

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..labor-law/

    1. Yes, they vote their political FAITH – which is why both politics and religion are prohibited at the table ๐Ÿ™‚

    2. At least they haven’t resorted to capitalism. If slavery fails they still have cannibalism to try.

      1. It’s called ‘human resource recycling’ and I’ll have you know it’s very good for the environment. #sustainability

    3. Forced farm labor? Gosh, I wonder why nobody has thought of that before.

      1. Oh, no no no, it’s not forced, it’s just a redefinition of the person’s job description.

      1. Yeah, no. If they tried to enforce that, it would burn faster than the hindenburg. The constitution might be a bit tattered these days, but even that is beyond the pale of what they can get away with in contravention of the 5th and 13th.

      2. The grammar, the grammar!

        *claws at eyes*

  7. Great. Short and female. That’s two things. One more and I get to be a freak.

    1. I can help you with that.

          1. Getting your nails did–yuuuuuge waste of time/money. I’d rather spend that money on a box of 9mm, a cheap bottle of something, or a bit of the green stuff.

            1. I just picked up a pretty good deal on 9mm target. $11/50 a box plus an hour free range time with purchase. $15/50 on Winchester 45 which I haven’t seen that low for a while. 185 gr which my officers special loves.

              1. Not too shabby!

                I usually just throw my money at the folks here who run the indoor range. It’s the only indoor range in town, and I’ll pay a higher price for their ammo/targets because I’m too much of a pansy to use the outdoor ranges, and it would really be a shame if they went out of business. I honestly couldn’t tell you what they charge for each because they tally up a few targets and boxes of ammo, plus the range fee, and I just hand them my card.

                1. Yeah, I was out of control this month. Two new toys plus and bunch of ammo and range time. I’d been pretty good for a couple years so splurge was overdo.

            2. a cheap bottle of something or a bit of the green stuff.

              I suggest a two-for-one!

              Foria Pleasure is a first of its kind all natural sensual enhancement oil thoughtfully designed for women and their partners – a blend of nourishing liquid coconut oil and lab-tested cannabis oil

              1. Mr. Riven doesn’t partake… so I’m afraid that’s a no-go.

                Maybe just for me, though!

        1. That’s exactly what I was talking about.

          1. Full disclosure–once covered in honey and money… I’m probably going to run away with your hard earned cash-money

            1. I would be disappointed if you didn’t

  8. I can see this. Short people, being stupid, unattractive, and inferior, are rightfully made fun of all throughout school. Athletes are tall. “Imposing” is a word rarely used to describe inferior short people. So they grow up thinking life is unfair, and other people are only successful by being “lucky” (lucky genetics for being tall), and a propensity for whining and belief that others only have what they have through random chance makes a potent brew in which to breed liberals.

    1. I’m 6’1, btw. Screw you, Danny DeVito.

      1. You are so inferior to Ron. How can you stand it?

        1. I barely can. The only thing that sustains me is the knowledge that I am superior to, apparently, 89% of everybody else.

      2. I’m 6’5″ screw you Gojira.

    2. Short people, being stupid, unattractive, and inferior

      Sure, but I make up for all that with my Napoleon Complex.

      1. With a chainsaw you don’t have to be shorty than anyone.

        1. or shorter

          1. There was a one-off Punisher/Wolverine crossover I have where the bad guys was this gang of midgets who were going around chainsawing people off at the knees.

            In the end, the two heroes killed them all. It was pretty funny.

            1. That sounds funny:)

          2. The shorty word was ok.

        2. Who you calling shorty, mother fucker. I’LL RIP YOUR HEAD OFF!!

          1. You’ll have to reach it, first…

    3. Meh, I’ll outlive all of you.

    4. Ouch. Btw I just had all the doorways in my house shortened to 5’8 and the tops of them lined with razor blades. I’m inviting all the tall people I hate I mean know over to tour the place in the dark, would you like to come.

  9. Well, no, Ron, it’s taller, richer, more intelligent, more decent, and more stunningly handsome guys are libertarians.

  10. Numerous psychological studies have shown people perceive tall people as having more authority (and vice versa, there’s a classic experiment where you have the same person introduced as either a grad student, an adjunct, an associate professor, or a full professor give a brief talk to a group of college students and afterwards ask them to estimate how tall the speaker was, and the average estimate increases as the title becomes more senior) and that this results in them getting chosen for promotion more frequently based purely on their stature.

    Since, all other things being equal, the taller sample is going to have advanced further in society, it’s not surprising they’re more likely to favor the status quo.

    1. People need to start checking their height privilege.

    2. This sure explains Bill Deblasio, who, I think, is around 6’5″.

      1. + LBJ was 6’4″

        1. Abe Lincoln was 6-5, I think.

          Tall people are also very honest. Just ask Abe.

    3. So being 5’6 means I’m oppressed? Ok, where do I go to get my free job and reimbursement for college?

  11. Tall People Vote Conservative, Says New Study

    TYPICAL. Looking down on people.

  12. The Tall Man from Phantasm.

    Libertarian?

    1. Died last year, sadly. Got to meet him at Texas Frightmare Weekend two years ago, happily.

      1. Oh no! Belated RIP. Love those movies.

    2. Wasn’t his overall goal in those movies to use dwarf slave labor in an alternate dimension?

      Definitely libertarian.

  13. What about the influence of hair color?

    I mean, besides grays tend to be more conservative.

    1. Is that still the case? It seems like it’s a popular trend for young feelers (females) to dye their hair grey these days.

    2. Seems pretty obvious that lighter=more conservative, at least if you’re not controlling for race.

  14. So bin Laden was the ultimate libertarian. I knew it.

    1. He WAS strongly anti-government…

  15. OT

    The socialist paradise known as Venezuela has officially reinstated slavery.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/29…..ector.html

    1. “No no, it’s not slavery! It’s just mandatory labor, for the good of everyone!”

      1. “It’s just The People? democratically deciding that they should work together for the good of the country! It’s so much better than our cut-throat capitalist system of food production, where big corporations are only producing food for profits!”

        /what some “progressives” will actually say in an attempt to whitewash the disaster of socialism

  16. Thoughts after a quick read:

    In this paper we employ height as a lever to gain traction on this problem. Economic historians
    have long viewed height as a strong predictor of income, and anthropologists often use height to proxy for economic well-being when income measures are absent. Building on this tradition, we present two main findings. First, taller individuals are more likely to support the Conservative party, support conservative policies, and vote conservative. As an extension, we employ height as an instrumental variable for income, finding that each additional thousand pounds of annual income translates to a two to three percentage point increase in probability of supporting the Conservatives,and that income also drives political beliefs and voting in the same direction

    Ok, so far, so good. But nowhere in the paper did I see a discussion of this effect over generations. Height is the ur-example statistical regression toward the mean. An exceptionally tall individual is most likely going to have offspring that are shorter than him or her. However, the same is not true of the lasting advantage socioeconomic status (SES) has over generations. It seems to me that even though that tall individual’s kids are going to be shorter, it is more likely, that they will support the Conservative party as they will most likely earn a similar income.

    1. Do we have data on multi-generational trends in income? Because the most famous adage regarding inherited wealth in the modern era is “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” whereby the descendants are less likely to be able to maintain a fortune than the person who built it. Or are we talking closer to the median but on the higher slope of the curve?

      1. There’s tons of data on it. Generally, the findings are that socioeconomic status at birth is strongly correlated with several factors that have been found to have a positive effect on future income, namely ultimate educational achievement, health, heritability of IQ, etc.

        1. Yes, but even a strong correlation doesnt mean there also isnt strong regression towards the mean.

          1. Yes, but even a strong correlation doesnt mean there also isnt strong regression towards the mean.

            True. But when it comes to SES the data show that the extremes actually don’t move around much.

            Forty-two percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution remain in the bottom, while 39 percent born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top.

            Children of middle-income parents have a near-equal likelihood of ending up in any other quintile, presenting equal promise and peril for those born to middle-class parents.

            The “rags to riches” story is much more common in Hollywood than on Main Street. Only 6 percent of children born to parents with family income at the very bottom move to the very top.

            1. What percent of the kids of top and bottom percentile of height stay in top and bottom quintile?

              42/39 may be either very high or very low numbers. Without a benchmark, I have no idea.

              1. What percent of the kids of top and bottom percentile of height stay in top and bottom quintile?

                That’s a bit apples and oranges, don’t you think? Height is phenotypic trait with a heritability or around 90 percent, meaning that 90 percent of the variation in height between two individuals is due to genetic factors, whereas SES at birth would have a heritability of zero as it’s not a genetic endowment. SES is a aggregate of an individual’s (or a household’s) income, education, and occupational prestige. Likewise, the distribution of height in individuals is Gaussian, but the distribution of income, much less education or occupation, sure as hell isn’t Gaussian . Regression to the mean exists for height because it is a random variable, but SES at birth isn’t. Your SES at birth is whatever your parents’ SES is, which gets back to my original point. Height and whatever its effects on income is, over generations, guaranteed to regress to the mean.

                1. If height is 90% heritable, how does it regress to the mean, except by intermarriage.

                  Skin color is likewise heritable. I don’t see much regression to the mean.

                  I am very doubtful that height regresses absent intermarriage with shorter people.

                  1. Short women are very attracted to tall men, from my personal experience. So if you’re a tall man looking to have a relationship with the most attractive woman you can get, you’re likely gonna date shorter women.

                    I’m 6’2″, and dated a string of women 5’4″ or shorter, including my current GF.

            2. But the “very top” is what? 1%? 5% 10%?

              1. But the “very top” is what? 1%? 5% 10%?

                That’s a good question. The full report makes it clear that “very top” means “top quintile,” so only 6 percent of people born into the lowest 1/5 by income reach the top 1/5 of income… they are saying the top 20% of earners.

            3. Forty-two percent of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution remain in the bottom, while 39 percent born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top.

              And what percentage of children born to the top 20% in height grow to be in the top 20%? You think it’s significantly below 39%?

    2. How tall are you? I need to know in order to gauge how much credence I should give your post.

      1. He has hybrid vigor on his side.

        1. Hybrid Vigor is a statistical illusion. Most hybrids are so ill-adapted to live they don’t even get born.

          Also even if we start that argument, a hybrid had parents from different base species. Thus HM does not fall into that category.

          1. Most hybrids are so ill-adapted to live they don’t even get born.

            That is why it works.

            Taking a simple example, two traits, 4 offspring:
            Parents are Ab (has trait A, doesnt have trait B) and aB (opposite).

            Kids:
            AB
            Ab
            Ba
            ab

            1/2 are “normal”, 1/4 are so bad off they dont survive, 1/4 are uberexamples of species.

            Of survivors, 1/3 are ubermen.

            It works for subspecies that have been highly separated and have distinctive traits.

            For humans, its a fucking joke.

            1. Of survivors

              That is why it is a statistical illusion. There are also times in your example where both AB and ab are lethal and only Ab and aB survive at all.

              1. True, but the survivors are just as well off.

                So, even if only sometimes the hybrid produces better survivors, the species improves on average.

                1. Do we need to go back to the data point where most true hybrids are sterile and thus do not contribute to the gene pool of either parent species?

                  Even if they do contribute, genetic traits which cause fewer viable offspring to be born do not result in an improvement to the overall health of a species.

                  1. You are using some weird definition of hybrid.

                    I am not talking mules, I am talking breeding quarter horses with Clydesdales or something.

                    Even if they do contribute, genetic traits which cause fewer viable offspring to be born do not result in an improvement to the overall health of a species.

                    If the average survivor is “better” the overall health of the species improves. Assuming enough survivors to continue on.

                    1. Two of the same species do not make a hybrid when they breed.

                    2. Hybrid normally refers to different alleles of a gene when discussing genetics. Not different species.

          2. a hybrid had parents from different base species. Thus HM does not fall into that category.

            [citation needed]

            1. For both parts.

              Actually, the first is flat out wrong.

            2. Citation on the definition of hybrid, or on the definition of mulatto?

              1. Citation on the definition of hybrid, or on the definition of mulatto?

                On my parents. I mean, one could have been a lizard person.

                1. Allright fine, are you mesothermic?

                  1. I do like to sun myself on a rock, if that helps.

        2. That sounds like a unit special rule for a tabletop combat game.

          “Hybrid Vigor: models with this rule may re-roll all failed To Hit rolls in the opening round of any combat.”

          1. Flip coin twice– If two heads put +1 bonus token on unit. If two tails, remove unit from game.

      2. I need to know in order to gauge how much credence I should give your post.

        I go by penis size.

      3. Just ask your wife; she’ll tell you how wide I am too. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    3. Wealth has regression to the mean also.

      When you consider the amount of movement around income quintiles and how ever the very wealthy often have great grandkids who are indistinguishable from anyone else wealth wise, I dont think there is that much lasting wealth.

      Status maybe, but not wealth.

      1. I agree that, for the most part, extreme wealth regresses to the mean. However, income is not necessarily the same as wealth. Again, my argument is that SES at birth is probably a more powerful indicator of future income than height due to reasons explained above.

        1. Patrick Ewing Jr is 6 ‘ 8″.

          That is regression towards the mean, but still puts him in the top 1%.

          And that isn’t really a surprising result, is it?

          I think the kids of 1%ers income wise (or wealth wise) are less likely to be so themselves.

          I mean, sure, Buffet’s kids are still 1%ers too. So maybe its about the same.

    4. An exceptionally tall individual is most likely going to have offspring that are shorter than him or her. However, the same is not true of the lasting advantage socioeconomic status (SES) has over generations.

      Haven’t thought about this much but here’s my first impression. SES is more heritable than even highly hereditary stuff like height and IQ for 2 reasons: 1) social yada yada 2) SES is a whole suite of genetically influenced traits, which reduces variation between generations.

      I’m sure one of the HBD neo-Nazi literally Hitlers like Jayman or Pseudorasmus has a 17,000 word essay on the topic.

      1. *Pseudoerasmus

      2. SES is more heritable than even highly hereditary stuff like height and IQ

        How are you using the term heritable here? That SES is passed down from one generation to the next or that variance between individual SES has a genetic component?

        1. Rereading my comment … former, 1) former, 2) latter.

  17. There’s trouble in the forest.

    /peart

    1. They got little hands
      Little eyes
      They walk around
      Tellin’ great big lies
      They got grubby little fingers
      And dirty little minds
      They’re gonna get you every time

  18. Y’all need to check your height privilege.

    1. And since only tall people can be heightist, I can say fuck you tallies! And I’m not a bigot!

      Cut the tall trees down! #notallmen

    2. Great. WASP. Male. Heterosexual. Southern. Now tall. I think maybe I’m the Man they speak of.

    3. Tall people should scurry around on their knees all day to let us know they have checked their height privilege. I’m sure Bill Clinton would approve.

      #kneepadsmatter

  19. My incoming bias would have been in relation to Napoleon syndrome. Even in prison, I’ve heard that the big burly guys aren’t the ones you have to worry about so much as the little short guys who feel like they’ve got to prove they’re tough all the time.

    Perhaps taller people tend to not feel like it’s necessary to impose themselves on other people (through government or otherwise)–because they’re already naturally imposing.

    I had a guy I worked with–nicest guy in the world. Nicer than me. 6’7+, two time Olympic athlete, though. It doesn’t matter how nice he’s being sometimes or how easy he’s being on people–a lot of them find him imposing just by his size and height.

    Also, this study needs to account for different racial characteristics. I have a hard time believing that if the average Chinese person or Latino is 4″ on average shorter than the average Norwegian, that this means the average American (descended from Norwegians) is more capitalist because he’s taller. He’s probably just more capitalist because he’s American and taller because he’s descended from Norwegians.

    1. Just for the record, the average height of males in China is 5’7.

      The average height in Norway is 5’11.

      http://tinyurl.com/zl2y44h

      1. Norwegians are short. (Or I’m just tall)

    2. Napoleon syndrome.

      1) its ‘complex‘,
      and
      2) he wasn’t that short – 5’7″? compared to his peers at the time. i think it was because his personal guard were taller than average that he was concerned about being *seen* as short.

      1. It was due to a difference in how the foot was measured in France vs. England. The foot was smaller in England, so his English opponents latched on to a perceived shortness as a way to mock their enemy.

        1. The French are always using the wrong unit of measurement.

          What are they on now? Metres?

          1. I read something about about TOS recently that was mocking the show for using Imperial measurements. But with computers doing all the work, who needs metric?

      2. 1) its ‘complex’,
        and
        2) he wasn’t that short – 5’7″?

        1) If it’s napoleon “complex”, then it’s that regardless of whether he was actually short.

        2) If I ever need some gnits picked, I’ll know who to go to.

        P.S. I know it’s spelled “nits” I misspelled it on purpose.

        Deal with it.

    3. My little brother has commented on this a lot. He’s 6’5 and says he has to be careful and friendly with people or they’ll misinterpret him as dangerous or hostile.

      1. If he’s libertarian, he IS dangerous to proggies.

  20. Here’s what we’re going to do:

    We’re gonna be scientific, and we’re going to create a privilege matrix. For rows, we’re going to break everyone down by group (black, white, tall, short, poor, rich, etc) and on the column, we’re going to rank their privilege. Then, we can compare rows against people and rank their privilege for job applications, government handouts, etc.

    And, just so it’s super social justice, we’ll let everyone vote on the rows and column values.

    That’s scientific social justice FTW. I fucking love social science!

  21. OT: This is Socialism: Venezuelan Crisis–Government Orders Forced Labor

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..nk-berrien

    1. You’re third to the party with that.

      1. it’s worth posting three times, dammit!

    2. People always forget the “from each according to their ability” part of the bullshit. They get so enrthralled with the “to each according to their needs” part.

      Sometimes, in reality, that looks like forced labor, when, due to capitalist swine, they’re just out of food and medicine.

      But, they can always enjoy work according to their abilities.

      1. That sounds like equal pay for unequal work.

        1. You just said income equality.

          1. No he said outgo inequality.

            1. These people need to get out of Venezuela while they can.

              Jesus Christ.

  22. I’m guessing it’s another result of male hormones. Taller, deeper voice, competitive mindset, less likely to react like an overly-emotional vagina…

  23. Short people got no reason, no reason to vote.

    1. OK, I looked. You’re the only one to reference it:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6I2NrguAs

      1. Wait…

        Rhywun|2016/07/29 14:51:40|#6303019?|?|filternamelinkcustom

        1 in 5 shorter than me.

        I have no reason to live.

  24. I am, like life, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

    1. Channeling your inner Werner Herzog?

      1. Inner Thomas Hobbes. But as long as you’re a ‘leviathan’ where it matters, that’s what’s important.

  25. “Nobel-winning economist calls Apple’s business practices ‘fraud'”
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo…..625008.php

    They ignored “lefty twit”.
    He’s pissed since Apple is following the law.

  26. And no one got shot

    1. The suspect shot his load. No one was injured.

  27. Hmmmm. That was previously always between two men, though.

  28. Undersizedmensch

  29. This Roger Ailes thing keeps getting worse for Fox.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelli…..years.html

    1. Fox News has only been around for 20 years period. It was founded in 1996. It’s not possible for her to have been harassed for longer than that.

      1. Roger Ailes sexually harassed me for like, a hundred years.

      2. Okay, read the thing now. Essentially, this women explicitly prostituted herself for the job. She was not an employ of Fox News at the time the offer was made. She had a job, but chose to take this job (she didn’t interview for it, it was offered) with an explicit understanding that she’d be expected to give Ailes head on a monthly basis in exchange. Her mental break down resulted from her coworkers starting to suspect that she didn’t earn her job but slept her way into it. Her direct boss (not Ailes) offered her a severance of six weeks if she would just leave (she was known as a protected person and they couldn’t fire her). Ailes swept to the rescue and gave her a job where she didn’t even have to show up but still got paid. Mental breakdowns continued, vacation had to be rescheduled they got so bad and she even ended up suicidal.

        The actual damning thing would be if her statements about looking for young women who applied to Fox and hiring them to explicitly try and get them to sleep with Ailes is true. Those women didn’t sign on to sleep their way to the top, and ripping the rug out from under them is sexual harassment.

  30. Finally, an explanation for Michael Dukakis

  31. Damn.. The 11th percentile.
    Silly southern Italian genes.

  32. If that were true, Rio would have the most conservative government in the world. Seriously I don’t know what it is, but Rio has the tallest people on average, anywhere I’ve been. I never felt so short when I am there. I mean, I’m not tall, only like 5’8″ or 5’9″ in socks, but everyone there over 12 years old must be at least 6 ft, even females.

    1. And black people would be solidly Republican or libertarian in this country.

      1. What’choo talkin’ ’bout?

  33. ‘ (1) “Private enterprise is the best way to solve the UK’s economic problems”; (2) “Major public services and industries ought to be in state ownership”; (3) “It is the government’s responsibility to provide a job for everyone who wants one”; (4) “The government should place an upper limit on the amount of money that any one person can make”; and (5) “Voted for Conservative Party in 2005 General Election”.’

    1 and 3 would indicate Conservative.
    2,3 and 4 are more like Labour policies.
    It’s all a mystery to me.

  34. I.m a short little Anarcho-Capitalist, Pirate Fuck. I shit on your “Tall” Libertarian Bullshit.

  35. Being 6’4″, may I point out that studies like this are almost invariably controlled by the “psychological” doctrine of “projection”.

    For example, the huffington post regularly posts articles about how persons libertarian or conservative, meaning behaviorally different from them are mentally ill. Which should frighten everyone with its implication that behavioral divergence from socialism requires neuroleptic medications.

    Needless to say, I’m Austrian, so obviously, more dangerous than isis.

    1. ^This,

      I don’t know why this point isn’t brought out more, especially given the history of communism and national socialisms (Nazi) experiments separating people into various groups and well, subsequently eradicating the undesirables. I’ve noticed from my studies from economics to politics that socialist/progressives big government types tend to promote studies such as these instead of focusing on each individual, look at Austrian economics focus on the individual vs Keynsian view on state planning and “studies” that categorize everything.

      1. It’s because they “fucking love science” so much!

  36. So this means Bill De Blasio 6’5″, Obama 6’1″, Trump 6’1″, Bill Clinton 6’2″ are all uber conservatives

    – and

    Margaret Thatcher 5’5″, Winston Churchill 5′”6, Calvin Coolidge 5’10”, James Madison 5’4″ Benjamin Franklin 5’6″ were all uber socialists.

    Haha funny study.

  37. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ???????? http://UsatodayJobs.Nypost55.com

  38. yeah if this was true, the Netherlands would be a libertarian super-state.

    *on a side note, where I live is filled with Dutch descendants and it is quite conservative here. But that’s more of function of the CRC church.

  39. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

    ?????? http://UsatodayJobs.Nypost55.com

  40. Some of my best friends stand below the median height for Americans.

    Sure, Bailey, and I bet they are black too.

  41. Height is correlated with intelligence, but not because tall people have more smartness genes, but because tall people generally got better prenatal and neonatal nutrition, which enhances both height and neurological development. A short person who is genetically short can also be genetically smart. But a person who is shorter due to malnutrition in infancy is also likely to be dumber. In other words, it’s the WHY one is short that matters, not the shortness itself. Remember it’s just a correlation with some r factor, not a one-to-one linear relationship. If people who were malnourished as babies are both shorter and dumber because of it, that’s going to turn up as a correlation between height and intelligence.

  42. I’m 6’5″ and left handed. Can I get special treatment? At least exit row privileges?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.