Taller individuals were less supportive of government wealth redistribution overall, but were especially averse if they were also wealthier. Post-hoc analyses suggested that for lower income deciles, the association was reversed. For these people, there was a positive association between height and support for wealth redistribution.
All according to incentives: well-off and tall? - redistribution hurts you. Poor and tall? - redistribution helps especially you because if the economic factors are equal you enjoy your inherent biological advantage on otherwise equal field.
If you're poor and short then you can hope to outcompete at least some tall people by doing better economically (working more, being smarter etc.). If the redistribution is very heavy then even if you manage to do that your now earned advantage is going to be taken away and redistributed leaving you with your biological disadvantage and no hope to outcompete those more privileged.
All this means that redistribution won't really help disadvantaged people (short, minority, less attractive) much. What would help are measure to curtail ways you benefit from those factors unjustly.
That's incorrect. "Being tall and wealthy makes you want more money", the abstract obviously says that wealthy tall people were especially against wealth distribution, implying that non-wealthy tall people were just like everyone else.
There is a correlation simply because taller people are generally wealthier (citation missing, but it should be easy to dig a few out).
Phrased more broadly: People born with inherent advantages (appearance, stature, wealth, citizenship, etc.) are less likely to empathize with those who were not.
Alternative interpretation: people with inherent advantages have more resources and don't want to give them up. People without those inherent advantages have fewer resources and would like more of them. People don't like to lose what they have, but they'd take more if they can.
Not saying this is the "correct" or morally right interpretation, but I'm just pointing out that this study probably says less than it appears. I don't think this study allows you to make a call on whether some people empathize with other people.
Meh, from figure 1b it looks like the effect mainly due to the richest 10% being strongly opposed to it. In fact,
> [...] all other deciles showed non-significant effects of height on redistribution attitudes when tested separately (all p >0.13), except the 10th decile which showed a significant negative effect (β=-0.06, se=0.02, p=0.02)
Exclude 10% of the data based on an important aspect, get a different result? Who would have thought. Anyway, I don't think there's anyone who believes length has a direct influence on political beliefs.
Do you suppose that there is a link between the fact that the Dutch are the tallest people in the world and that they also have the lowest incidence of lactose intolerance?
As someone who knows a thing or two about statistics, this looks as a painfully wrong interpretation of the data. Essentially this is p-hacking, although it might be inadvertant by the authors.
So, if you have a lot of data, you don't get to try many things and then report the ones with high significance. I really doubt this result will stand in a dedicated followup study.
this happens when you massively test irrelevant things. There is somewhere a statistically significant correlation with the color of your couch and the mars trajectory. That's why it is very important that data analysts and statisticians take a good look at the data and also explain it.
Totally click-bait: my immediate reaction was that there were already studies to show that taller people are wealthier, and it seemed more reasonable to expect wealthier people to (in general) care less about wealth redistribution.
That selection bias was already confirmed in the abstract, but obviously not in the title.
However, as a tall person myself at 6'5"/195cm, I find that I do have to earn more (actually spend more) just to get the same lifestyle. All my out-of-pocket expenses for business travel to upgrade my economy seats on long-haul flights, bigger cars just to be able to fit my kids in the back, custom, longer beds and mattresses (and when looking to vacation somewhere, checking photos to ensure bed is not bounded at the bottom by a rail or I'll be spending nights crunched up)..., increase costs just so I can "fit" into many places people take for granted.
So while there is some preferential treatment for taller males (I've seen it too), nobody mentions the extra costs their lives generally require. It's like comparing absolute salaries between countries.
I would imagine it's not mentioned because those costs are somewhat negligible compared to the positives of being a tall man. The things you've listed seem pretty trivial to be honest, and I imagine any man shorter than 5'9" would trade positions with you in an instant. It's like listing the bad parts of having more money, sure nothing is ever 100% positive but when it's 99% positive, it's not always worth mentioning the negative 1%.
Or maybe they are not mentioned because nobody thought of it? Like, the OP study happened, and it's nothing but "wealthy people are less likely to want wealth redistribution, even if they are tall".
From personal experience, I'd say it's far from negligible when you put it down on paper. Only people outside the average size (5-95th percentile usually) have to think about these.
I'd go on to say that everything in life is on average 50% more expensive for me (eg. custom bed is 2-3x more expensive than those available in stores of comparable quality, my custom height kitchen-top as well, or baby changing station... But plenty of things are the same price, thus only a 50% increase). For the same amount of money, "average humans" are getting more out of it. If that should not be accounted for when it comes to "wealth", I am not sure what should. But I guess without properly accounting for all the things I've "had" to pay extra for just to get basic comfort, people are going to continue to claim costs are negligible.
Not saying I'd change with anyone, and I am probably lucky to have ended up in IT (otherwise, my feet would be dangling off my bed :)). And sure, it's way better for males to be taller than average than shorter than average in the society today, but there's a whole lot of average in there that simply don't have to think about any of the things I do.
I don’t disagree with your logic, but I want you to re-read your third paragraph and then to honestly consider the realities of the people who are most negatively affected by wealth inequality.
You are talking about an extreme: those "most negatively affected" are definitely not comparable to my situation. FWIW, I have not stated my position on "wealth redistribution", since you seem to be arguing as if I said I am against it (and no, I still haven't stated it).
I am personally just well-off and in no way "wealthy" (as most senior software engineers likely are today). I am not complaining, I am just putting out a data point that I've never seen mentioned, let alone studied.
I am fully aware of the non-direct benefits things like "good looks" (height being one of those in males — my sister is over 6' herself and you can guess what her experience being above average height has been) have on people's success: it's easy enough to notice a difference in how people treat you—one single person—depending on what you are wearing (sweatpants, jeans, or more formal attire).
Imagine your research gets published in a journal and gets criticised and flagged on HN. The academia has so much to learn with respect to open reviews and open science.
34 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 81.5 ms ] threadTaller individuals were less supportive of government wealth redistribution overall, but were especially averse if they were also wealthier. Post-hoc analyses suggested that for lower income deciles, the association was reversed. For these people, there was a positive association between height and support for wealth redistribution.
If you're poor and short then you can hope to outcompete at least some tall people by doing better economically (working more, being smarter etc.). If the redistribution is very heavy then even if you manage to do that your now earned advantage is going to be taken away and redistributed leaving you with your biological disadvantage and no hope to outcompete those more privileged.
All this means that redistribution won't really help disadvantaged people (short, minority, less attractive) much. What would help are measure to curtail ways you benefit from those factors unjustly.
There is a correlation simply because taller people are generally wealthier (citation missing, but it should be easy to dig a few out).
Not saying this is the "correct" or morally right interpretation, but I'm just pointing out that this study probably says less than it appears. I don't think this study allows you to make a call on whether some people empathize with other people.
That's not an alternative interpretarion but rather a paraphrase.
Also as an example I might emphatize with poorer people, I don't believe that unconditional redistribution is sustainable.
See also: https://youtu.be/8bfyS-S-IJs?t=56
> [...] all other deciles showed non-significant effects of height on redistribution attitudes when tested separately (all p >0.13), except the 10th decile which showed a significant negative effect (β=-0.06, se=0.02, p=0.02)
TL;DR: ignore and forget.
This XKCD explains it well: https://xkcd.com/882/
So, if you have a lot of data, you don't get to try many things and then report the ones with high significance. I really doubt this result will stand in a dedicated followup study.
That selection bias was already confirmed in the abstract, but obviously not in the title.
However, as a tall person myself at 6'5"/195cm, I find that I do have to earn more (actually spend more) just to get the same lifestyle. All my out-of-pocket expenses for business travel to upgrade my economy seats on long-haul flights, bigger cars just to be able to fit my kids in the back, custom, longer beds and mattresses (and when looking to vacation somewhere, checking photos to ensure bed is not bounded at the bottom by a rail or I'll be spending nights crunched up)..., increase costs just so I can "fit" into many places people take for granted.
So while there is some preferential treatment for taller males (I've seen it too), nobody mentions the extra costs their lives generally require. It's like comparing absolute salaries between countries.
From personal experience, I'd say it's far from negligible when you put it down on paper. Only people outside the average size (5-95th percentile usually) have to think about these.
I'd go on to say that everything in life is on average 50% more expensive for me (eg. custom bed is 2-3x more expensive than those available in stores of comparable quality, my custom height kitchen-top as well, or baby changing station... But plenty of things are the same price, thus only a 50% increase). For the same amount of money, "average humans" are getting more out of it. If that should not be accounted for when it comes to "wealth", I am not sure what should. But I guess without properly accounting for all the things I've "had" to pay extra for just to get basic comfort, people are going to continue to claim costs are negligible.
Not saying I'd change with anyone, and I am probably lucky to have ended up in IT (otherwise, my feet would be dangling off my bed :)). And sure, it's way better for males to be taller than average than shorter than average in the society today, but there's a whole lot of average in there that simply don't have to think about any of the things I do.
I am personally just well-off and in no way "wealthy" (as most senior software engineers likely are today). I am not complaining, I am just putting out a data point that I've never seen mentioned, let alone studied.
I am fully aware of the non-direct benefits things like "good looks" (height being one of those in males — my sister is over 6' herself and you can guess what her experience being above average height has been) have on people's success: it's easy enough to notice a difference in how people treat you—one single person—depending on what you are wearing (sweatpants, jeans, or more formal attire).
Better or not ?
* People who think they are responsible for their own success are less likely to support redistribution of wealth
* People who are wealthy are more likely to think they are responsible for their own success.
* Wealthy families are more likely to feed their children well
* Well-fed children are likely to taller than poorer-fed children
* Wealthy families are more likely to produce children who are wealthy themselves when they grow up
Therefore, tall people are less likely to be supportive of redistribution of wealth