Ok but it's still a really basic evolutionary signal, taller is better, especially for the hunting/fighting gender. Some dogs get up on their hind legs to piss higher on trees.
Guys let’s not pretend that him being taller and more stereotypically handsome would’ve hurt his “achievements”.
It would’ve of course helped.
The fact that height and stereotypical beauty standards are not the only things that matter does not change that on average they have a significant positive impact.
The point is that stereotypical beauty standards, while they matter, they matter less than one would think when it comes to a hetero man approaching a hetero woman.
Give women some credit. Confidence and fun are way better heuristics than a strong jawline on a neurotic wreck. They are smarter than men socially, on average, so any theory should account for that.
Since I'm feeling generous, the words you missed are "fun and confident". One could expand to "comfortable and happy in one's skin", very much not a synonym for cockiness which is prickly and challenging. You can't fake it, it comes and goes for all of us.
OPs friend got laid a lot despite "traditional" defects because of wholesome, fun confidence.
And you don't think the tall, rich, well-endowed man is more likely to be a little more confident than the short, poor micro-penised man?
Put "I'm fun and confident" in your dating profile and I'll put "6'4"" and we'll see how that pans out. You won't be having much fun and your confidence will be shot.
BEING fun and confident matters. Saying you are is, well, not fun or confident.
A friend of mine, well below 6 feet, once had a dating profile where he went into a weird tangent about loving mac and cheese. A weird, sexual and hilarious tangent, where he started arguing with you, the reader, about why are we still talking about this? I said I never had sex with a bowl of mac and cheese! It was classic and he got a ton of dates from it.
Admittedly online dating sucks and my friend there could have been a comedy writer in another life. It's hard to stand out. But in person? It doesn't matter how many dates your profile did or didn't get, you must be fun and comfortable in your own skin, why spend time with someone who isn't both of those things?
Rich and handsome 6'4" men have no problem standing out. This is the point. Online dating does not suck for them.
Your goofy friend might get lots of updoots on reddit but if he's short and broke it would be <1% of women who don't immediately reject him. They will never even see his mac and cheese bio. Online dating would be a waste of time for him at best; at worst, kiss goodbye to this delusional confidence once the crushing reality manifests.
That's what I'm trying to help you understand. My goofy friend was plowing a trail of pussy through NYC at that time with his fun and confident antics. Below 6 feet and definitely not rich back then.
There's a point past this where racking up a number is hollow and meaningless but that's beside the point right now. The thing I'm trying to tell you is that you can have a better and more positive personality even if you can't grow 6 inches. And that better personality is not some incel shit or "negging" or whatever.
If none of this makes sense to you, look up Stavros Halkias on youtube and compare his looks to his general confidence and attitude.
Actual shout out to Oracle inexplicably moving Java forward a ton while also not strangling it with fees and suing their own customers. Wonder if there's a story of some genius, unsung internal salesman who made that happen.
I hate that phrase. There are billions of people who can't code and also aren't teaching it. And plenty of people who are good at something and enjoy giving back and sharing in the form of teaching.
An undersold embarrassment of this fiasco is the Marine Corps has 10 (ten!) amphibious assault carriers that are more capable than most nations' flagships and we didn't see one of them even talked about. Why have we been floating these things for decades?
How would you propose we use them here? It seemed for a while like our military was at least prepping for a land invasion.
Maybe they could have been part of the landing but I'm sure as hell glad they didn't follow through with an invasion. The geography, supply line issues, and drone warfare would have been an absolute nightmare.
Quick guess without looking it up: for how many decades were we protecting liberal democracy in Korea and Taiwan before they had their first free elections?
This is a big deal for infantry forces but I suspect rather less for air and missile forces. If anything, US pilots might be unequipped psychologically to deal with anything newer than 50yo MiGs.
reply