161–167 of 167 posts
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
HN is a perfect example. At least i think so. I'm not sure.
Research shows a very strong correlation between mere height and who ends up at the very height of corporate leadership. It's an ape thing, not a competence thing.
That is one of those "correlation is not causation" things. You need to dig deeper to find the actual causation. One of the best CEOs I've known was quite short. For example, it could be that growing up tall gives you more confidence (because you are better at sports all the time), and more confidence makes it easier to rise in corporate leadership. But we don't know for sure until we study it more.
I was once at the opening of a Picasso exhibition where most of the people present were CEOs, and at the same place, I also attended the opening of a exhibition of Yousuf Karsh photos, where he was appeared. I'm tall, but I was nearly the shortest person in that large room both times. The only two times that's ever happened to me.
As for causation, it's been experimentally tested and confirmed, with small groups picking leaders. There's a great old book retailing many remarkable such studies called "The Height of Your Life" by Ralph Keyes. It also discussed research showing that a substantial chunk of sex discrimination was actually height discrimination (see Sheryl Sandberg's remarkably high heels - she knows the score.)
You said I should dig deeper - I've given you my bibliography, could you now favor me with yours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is one of those "correlation is not causation" things. You need to dig deeper to find the actual causation. One of the best CEOs I've known was quite short. For example, it could be that growing up tall gives you more confidence (because you are better at sports all the time), and more confidence makes it easier to rise in corporate leadership. But we don't know for sure until we study it more.
If you watch a high school cafeteria for one hour you know exactly why taller people are promoted to leadership. The same reason they tend to be whiter, a little better looking, more athletic. Interesting paradox: for Men, girth is actually good. Carry a few extra pounds, and it's good. For women - inverse. Skinny women earn more. Think of this: every single social interaction you have - with the guy at the watercool…
Research shows a very strong correlation between mere height and who ends up at the very height of corporate leadership. It's an ape thing, not a competence thing.
And yet we became humans by being the most competent apes. Perhaps both are true. I'm not arguing that tall people are better leaders than short people, just that we seem to have such a bias built in and it must exist for some evolutionary reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think its a race issue so much as a physical appearance issue. Height, attractiveness, facial structure, body size. Certain people look "presidential" and they command a lot of automatic respect just based on appearance. There are plenty of minority people that have this quality. There are plenty of white males lacking this quality. Look-ism is the huge issue that is almost never talked about. In most compani…
I think you're right. Minority, female, etc., are often just noisy proxies for what you call look-ism and I would also add normal-ism.
Fitting in is not a way to create progress. Adaptability and inclusiveness is. That was the point of diversity training in the first place, not normalization. Cultures function much more efficiently when diversity is introduced into the medium.
The real reason for the stagnation in social order is the fear of being pushed outside the herd if you are too near to the edge. We must become more inclusive, and fight the laziness that manifests itself in regressing to the mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And ableism and... There probably needs to be a general purpose word for this...
I gather kyriarchy was coined to serve this purpose, but I don't think it's widely used.
Judging anyone by anything other than what is called for when doing the actual work is inherently superficial and therefore fascist (fascia, on the face). Fairly synergistic connection there regarding the popularity of a certain face-themed webpage.
We can make up labels all day to make it fresh or more precise, but the logos/pathos/ethos of the term 'fascist' is sound in every instance of excluding or including someone based on anything but propensity. It is interesting that we can't acknowledge it, like we are all so wrapped up in finding our niche that when we do, anything that would jeopardize that is immediately regarded as false.
Like, who would you be if you aren't actually as talented as you think you are?
But I digress.