Current Events > I came across a very interesting comment on YouTube about height

(+) Yeah! (+)

Guido I can see were you are coming from somewhat (no cope I'm 6'1), and it is an interesting and complicated topic. Yes people in the past were shorter, yet life expectancy wasn't longer, infact it was much shorter, of course it was rarely from old age but from disease and warfare.

And it is interesting to note that most species of mammals that are large tend to be the most long lived (Elephants for example).
Nutrition did play a significant part in height differences in past humans, for instance the average british soldier in WW1 was around 5'2", yet the average british officer was 5'6", the former was drawn mainly from the working classes and the later from the aristocracy, it is believed that nutrition was to blame, interestingly those grown soldiers when supplied with the army's 3 meals a day in training often shot up as much as 2 inches.

But height still varied despite nutrition considerably then as it does now, those were just averages, and when most people get very similiar diets, the difference can then be put down to genetics.

Except.....many people today are growing tall, tall and THIN as well, that is tall and weak, we're too well fed, our 5'4-5'6 caveman genes can't keep up with the nutrition, and that's bad, the growth pattern of much of modern youth favours adding length before breadth. I'd imagine those with such rapid metabolisms and high caloric intake are the most likely to succumb to this during their developmental years, and thus become tall lanklets, since they metabolize quicker they also divide cells quicker and age quicker.....die quicker.

So majorcope.gif or not, you're not wrong sir.
Though it's a reminder that Female sexual selection is pretty fucking flawed.
Taller people may seem like they have an advantage, height is a massive halo effect, people tend to think they make better leaders for instance; yet their bones are often thinner, less likely to survive in a fight, they have lower longevity. In other words they're genetic subhumans, and actually describing those who are taller as having "better genes" is major cope in itself.

If you want to know the true genetic freaks, it's those who are both tall and broad, they have the bone size to survive a physical encounter, they may or may not live longer, but all that matters is they live long enough to reproduce and that's very likely given how much women love those massive fuckers.

How true is this?

Who alt this is
---

who posted
---

YonicBoom posted...

who posted

your father

tote_all posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunted_growth

Wiki articles are editable and highly misleading.

tote_all posted...

Normal-Human posted...

tote_all posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunted_growth

Wiki articles are editable and highly misleading.

Do you understand how knowledge is spread? Get what the little numbers are?

If CNN said that the earth is flat then wiki will report it so since it is a "reliable source" according to them. It will take up too much time for me to explain how that site works but I have been there and their whole system is a joke. I never trust wiki. It is just as bad as the mainstream media.

Sounds like manlet mischief to me
---

My brother and I are both adopted so we share no genes. We ate the same food growing up. He's 6'0 and extremely lanky. I'm 5'10 and wide-framed.
---

Anytime anyone mentions caveman genes theyre full of shit. Thats not how genetics work.
---

Conflict posted...

Normal-Human posted...

tote_all posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunted_growth

Wiki articles are editable and highly misleading.

1. Articles cite other sources
2. This isn't 2006. If you edit an article with stupid shit, it's going to get reverted right back. "You can edit wikipedia" isn't a valid argument anymore

No, a lot of crap does not get reverted and a lot of good edits also get reverted and if you complain then you will be instantly banned. If you are a new user then no one will listen to you. That site has its own set of loyal followers (nerds with no life) whose ideal past time is to edit those articles and they make edits like they are being paid for it. If there is someone with a 9 year old account and he doesn't want your edit on an article then he can revert them and have you blocked. I know this because I have been there and I tried getting some wrong information removed in an article about a person whom I personally know but one of these editors wouldn't let me. It wasn't a bot. It was an actual person. I talked to him and looked up his history, he had made edits nearly every single day for the last 9 years on that site and he was active throughout most of the day except for sleeping hours and he wasn't even getting paid for it. That was the saddest thing I have ever seen and I haven't used that site since.

tote_all posted...

Normal-Human posted...

Conflict posted...

Normal-Human posted...

tote_all posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunted_growth

Wiki articles are editable and highly misleading.

1. Articles cite other sources
2. This isn't 2006. If you edit an article with stupid shit, it's going to get reverted right back. "You can edit wikipedia" isn't a valid argument anymore

No, a lot of crap does not get reverted and a lot of good edits also get reverted and if you complain then you will be instantly banned. If you are a new user then no one will listen to you. That site has its own set of loyal followers (nerds with no life) whose ideal past time is to edit those articles and they make edits like they are being paid for it. If there is someone with a 9 year old account and he doesn't want your edit on an article then he can revert them and have you blocked. I know this because I have been there and I tried getting some wrong information removed in an article about a person whom I personally know but one of these editors wouldn't let me. It wasn't a bot. It was an actual person. I talked to him and looked up his history, he had made edits nearly every single day for the last 9 years on that site and he was active throughout most of the day except for sleeping hours and he wasn't even getting paid for it. That was the saddest thing I have ever seen and I haven't used that site since.

Advising people not to trust wikipedia by a story with no details or evidence, essentially asking people to trust him.

Im sure you are completely oblivious to the contradiction too.

But anyway, if you want to educate yourself just fucking google some papers about nutritional stunting and see why what you are saying is not as surprising as you think it is.

Bye now.

No one is talking to you dude, shut up and stop getting so angry on the internet and if you wanna prove a point then make a post not just leave a link from wiki which even a toddler knows is not true and internet is not my life to the point where I would make up stories on it. I'm not a 35 year old nerd who plays video games and has a 7 year old account on gfaqs.