If you've ever wondered why Dutch people are so tall, this story from The New York Times may have the answer:
Today, the Dutch are on average the tallest people on the planet. Just 150 years ago, they were relatively short. In 1860, the average Dutch soldier in the Netherlands was just 5 feet 5 inches. American men were 2.7 inches taller.
Since 1860, average heights have increased in many parts of the world, but no people have shot up like the Dutch. The average Dutchman now stands over six feet tall. And while the growth spurt in the United States has stopped in recent years, the Dutch continue to get taller.
For years, scientists have sought to understand why average height has increased, and why the Dutch in particular have grown so quickly. Among other factors, the Dutch have a better diet than in the past, and they also have better medical care. But now Dr. Stulp and his colleagues have found evidence suggesting that evolution itself is also helping to make them taller.
It seems that taller men in the Netherlands are more likely to father more children:
Dr. Stulp and his colleagues analyzed data on 42,612 men and women over age 45, looking at the height of their subjects and how many children they had. Dutch men who were taller than average had more children than those of average or lower than average height, the researchers found.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Friday April 10 2015, @08:09PM
Shows evolution is alive and well. What should we expect next ?
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @08:58PM
The bell curve issue to come up again. Why is it that people of different ethnicity, factoring for education on a culture neutral test battery, have different mean IQ numbers? Along with the usual stuff about IQ being meaningless, the wonderlic not actually being culture neutral, that intelligence does not actually have any advantages, and so on.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 10 2015, @09:07PM
This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity and everything to do with dick size. Taller men have bigger dicks, and bigger dicks make women not only orgasm but stay. Orgasm physiologically increases the odds of female pregnancy while the female's pleasure ensures that she will stay around to reproduce the sensations. Tall men have tall kids.
There are plenty of light-skinned women in that part of the world who, for various reasons, want to have kids with a skin color close to theirs, despite what all of the Jew-conceived race-mixing propaganda plastered and broadcast everywhere would have you believe.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday April 10 2015, @09:10PM
Yep, it's dicks all the way down!
(Score: 1, Troll) by GungnirSniper on Friday April 10 2015, @09:34PM
The ruling classes in Western Europe are certainly trying to destroy any semblance of national ethnicity among the native population. Since most European features (at least hair and eye color) are recessive, this means immigration is the recessive genocide.
I've read elsewhere that women prefer thicker penises for one-night-stands and longer, thinner ones for relationships.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:09PM
I've read elsewhere that women prefer thicker penises for one-night-stands and longer, thinner ones for relationships.
Sounds like your anxiety over race mixing has more to do with fear of large black penises.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:19PM
Okay what the hell. This clearly racist statement is modded informative while other evidence based posts are modded flamebait.
Has soylent turned to slashdot so quickly?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:40PM
No, this statement isn't racist. I'm not making any claim over the race-based differences in penis size. Rather, I was saying that the GP's non-sequitor about penis size directly after equating of race-mixing to genocide suggests that he has some deep-seated fears about black penises.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday April 11 2015, @05:35PM
You're the one who has now posted twice about black penises, which I did not bring up at all. So who's obsessed again?
In fact, you're revealing your own biases about black men. It would seem you believe stereotypes are okay as long as they are positive.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @09:43PM
Natural selection explains blacks in the USA. For 350 years, they were bred to be strong and muscular for field labor. The ones who were smart and resisted were killed while their obedient cousins stayed around to breed and replenish the next generation. Eventually, the large majority of the population became stronger, larger, but more docile and dependent. Today, black culture in America is characterized by groupthink (some 99% voting for the same political party that enacted Jim Crow laws and supported the Klan) and broken families....the lasting legacy of slavery.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @09:50PM
Natural selection explains blacks in the USA. For 350 years, they were bred to be strong and muscular for field labor.
The last guy who said that got fired from CBS [wikipedia.org]. Besides, it's not NATURAL selection if someone is choosing which ones breed for the express purpose of breeding better laborers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:17PM
Interesting that I was modded flamebait. Why is it that height differences are okay to talk about but IQ is taboo to even acknowledge? I made no specific claims save for that there is evidence of difference in IQ, just as there is evidence for difference in height and I listed some of the counterarguments.
I think the moderation says more about the mods than the content.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:22AM
Because when there's a lot of self interests involved. There will be a fight.
(Score: 2) by fleg on Saturday April 11 2015, @04:28AM
indeed. which is why i just modded it interesting. would be good if you could post some citations too tho.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:07PM
IQ shouldn't be taboo, but it should be acknowledged as mere pseudoscience. The idea that we can measure someone's intelligence using a single number and laughably simple tests, and then claim it does measure intelligence because it supposedly correlates with things some arbitrarily think are indicators of intelligence is pure nonsense. We don't have a good enough definition of intelligence yet, let alone a way to measure it with any degree of accuracy.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday April 11 2015, @07:49AM
Citation needed.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday April 10 2015, @09:58PM
Dutch excessive height is an evolutionary hybrid: HUMAN crossed with "DUCK".
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:34PM
Dutch excessive height is an evolutionary hybrid: HUMAN crossed with "DUCK".
"Adieu, canaux, canards, canaille!" - Voltaire, upon leaving the NL.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday April 10 2015, @10:02PM
Look at this comment section. Just look at it. The unbridled glee at willfully misunderstanding a single study to support long out-dated racist preconceived notions.
Fuck, Ethanol-Fueled is here to randomly blame things on "The Jews". It gets me how fucked up people on the internet are.
Hey fuckers, you know what has a stronger correlation to IQ than race? Racist views. It's true, look it up.
Ya'll guys are dopes, and here's some open access cluesticks for you.
Cognitive differences between countries diminishing [sciencedirect.com].
Quite rapidly in fact [sciencedirect.com]
Those gains are very closely correlated to improvements in infrastructure, health, and education (Lost my link, but don't you dare citation needed this)
The real, measurable effect of genetics on IQ accounts for about 20% of variation. [sciencedirect.com] Yeah, it exists, but it explains very little of what we see.
Programs focused on early development education improve IQ scores compared to controls [sciencedirect.com]
All-in-all, you assholes need to stop pretending evil outsiders are covering up the secret race-based truth, and get your heads out of your asses, and accept that science doesn't support the primitive, narrowminded genetic essentialist views you've locked yourselves into. Learn a tiny bit of the science before opening your mouths and spewing long discredited racist bullshit.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:16PM
Yeah, Jesus Christ. IQ differences between countries can be easily explained by the Flynn effect (although the workings behind this aren't well known).
Africa has lower IQs than elsewhere. However, the average IQ in Ethiopia is about that of Britain in the 1940s. With further development, there's no reason to expect they won't catch up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:51PM
Except people of African decent, when born in the UK with a UK education still do not "catch up" as you say. Other groups have a higher IQ than the overall median with the same opportunities. Something is at work here and it would be wrong to ignore it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @11:30PM
Obviously there is something wrong with the UK since convergence is happening in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:09PM
If you think that IQ is anything other than pseudoscience to begin with, you may have some issues.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:25PM
The most hateful person on this site is you. Just read what you wrote. You should be ashamed of yourself. Even your citations are wrong. An example: you state that genetics only account for 20% of variation. The paper you linked to says 56%. Not only did you get the number wrong, you used it as absurd proof that anyone pointing it out is racist.
That is not science. Expletive rants are not respectful. You are the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:38AM
Wah!!!
You must be respectful towards my racism! Otherwise you are a damn dirty hypocrite!
Liberals! Always accusing conservatives of being evil to censor them!
Meanwhile real conservatives never think liberals are evil.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday April 10 2015, @10:54PM
IQ questions in Weschler and Stanford Binet are sociologically, economically and culturally biased.
Speaking as a tested 140 + Weschler score.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday April 11 2015, @07:19PM
Sure, but do look up spearman's hypothesis.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday April 10 2015, @11:10PM
It anecdotally serves your point that right-wing posts and images tend to have more grammar errors than left-wing ones.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @01:08AM
That's meaningless. Failure to give much of a damn about precise grammar and spelling in a casual message meanings nothing.
Now, on the other hand, right-wing female politicians and successful pundits are universally hotties while those on the left-wing are pretty plain. Liberals might have hotter female constituencies in hollywood and such, but beauty is not a requirement for political leadership.
That right-wingers think that difference is something to brag about is where they really make the case against their own intelligence.
https://rightpunditry.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/republican-vs-democrat-women4.jpg [wordpress.com]
http://hackwilson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/new-ucla-studies-finds-conservative.html [blogspot.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @08:39AM
That's funny.
Gungan makes a completely unsupported claim and is unmolested.
AC makes a claim with references and passable logic that comes to the same conclusion ... gets modded down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @03:18PM
Group selection. Also known as kinselection, tribalism, or being clannish. Even the most open minded, progressive (not in the political sense) people will attack anyone they see as other and defend anyone they see as within their group. Just look at this comment section. There is near half a dozen clear groups ignoring facts and indulging in this primitive behavior.
(Score: 2) by fleg on Saturday April 11 2015, @04:32AM
thanks for the links.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday April 10 2015, @10:11PM
Unless there's a large population of wild bears roaming the Netherlands that prefer to eat short people, I think that sexual selection pressure is likely behind the increasing height of the Dutch rather than natural selection. In many (probably most) cultures, women show a preference for taller men and if men don't have an equally strong preference for shorter women, the overall genetic forcing will trend taller.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday April 10 2015, @11:35PM
Probably, but how does this compare to other nations and cultures? As you say, in many other cultures, women also show a preference for taller men. Heck, I'm on OKCupid and I constantly see women on there demanding that any men who contact them must be at least 6 feet tall. (I'm over 6', luckily, but it doesn't seem to be getting me that much interest :-( That's OK, I'm not seeing many interesting women on there anyway; it seems like all the women in my area who bother with OKC are dumb rednecks.)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:25AM
So where are the sane girls then?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 11 2015, @04:26PM
What do you mean by sane? Do you mean women who have more realistic requirements, or ones who are aren't uninteresting?
Personally, I'm starting to think they just don't exist, and that once you get past the age of 30 (on the female side; males have a bit more time since they tend to hook up with younger women on average, but there's a limit here), the women who are still single have something seriously wrong with them. In addition, as a male you're probably more set in your ways and have various requirements which will make it completely infeasible to find a good partner at this age (>35), so if you find yourself single past these ages, you might as well just give up and save yourself the aggravation.
(Score: 1) by SanityCheck on Saturday April 11 2015, @05:00PM
Please don't scare me :(
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:07PM
Sane women are those that have realistic requirements and are honest about them. And in generally having a courteous manner.
And higher age makes it harder, but giving up just means one does it the wrong way.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 11 2015, @07:47PM
Giving up gives you a lot more time to pursue other, more successful interests. Dating (as in actively searching for people to date) takes a lot of time and attention.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:35PM
Good women are thin on the ground at any age. And what you consider "good" tends to change as you get older. In high school it's cute bumps. Later you start to consider more practical things. But I, an extremely shy person, and horrible at meeting people, actually found my wife in my 40s. Strangely enough, in my 30s I would not have realized what a good catch she was. I was searching for someone more like me, and that would have been a horrible mistake.
Here's a few clues: You don't want someone like yourself. Intelligence isn't important, but having an open mind is (even though that means some really silly things can drift into it). Also beauty is of only minor importance, but having a willingness to honestly discuss disagreements is so important that it can't be overrated...but you need to expect to develop that during the relationship, as it won't be there at the start. So you'll both need to work at it (but you can't press her to work at it, you need to cause her to WANT to work at it).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 11 2015, @08:13PM
You don't want someone like yourself. Intelligence isn't important, but having an open mind is
Yeah, I used to think all that too, and married someone who isn't as as smart, and I kept a really open mind about our differences. Fast-forward 5-10 years and now all the differences have become too great to ignore. A big, big problem for her is that I never grew to like a bunch of things that she likes, such as country music. So yes, if you don't have a LOT of things in common, even seemingly minor things, you can look forward to this finally driving a wedge between you years later. Also, everything you ever did wrong will be remembered and used against you later.
Honestly, unless a couple is not very close emotionally, and just treat each other as roommates, I don't see how a marriage can last longer than 10 years. Most of the really long-lived marriages I've seen are like that: the couple has absolutely nothing in common, and are really just roommates who used to have sex when they were young (but haven't for decades). Why we as a society hold this up as some kind of ideal, I have no idea.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday April 12 2015, @06:47PM
It sounds like you need to work out ways of resolving your differences. Sometimes it's difficult, but it's well worth it. (OTOH, if you can't explain about why evidence is important you've got troubles. Even if you can, though, differences about what counts as reliable evidence [i.e., who do you trust] can cause differences. But if you can resolve your important differences, those that remain will be seen as minor. And important means those that affect how you live your life from day-to-day. Also resolve doesn't mean that you need to come to the same conclusion/decision. It means that you can each live your life without strongly interfering with the other. If you can find places where you can interact usefully, that's a tremendous bonus...and there will be many of them.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by slinches on Saturday April 11 2015, @05:59PM
How do the Dutch compare to other cultures? I have no idea. I've never been there. I was just pointing out that there's a difference between natural (i.e. environment based) selection and sexual preference based selection processes.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Saturday April 11 2015, @12:44AM
Unless there's a large population of wild bears roaming the Netherlands that prefer to eat short people...
Shorter legs, slower running?
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday April 12 2015, @02:17AM
It's due to climate change! The Dutch are somewhat uniquely vulnerable to sea level rise and they are preparing by growing taller.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by inertnet on Friday April 10 2015, @10:31PM
Years ago we were told that our tallness was due to residual growth hormones in all the dairy products we were fed excessively.
(Score: 4, Funny) by maxwell demon on Saturday April 11 2015, @08:15AM
Actually it's evolution preparing for the rise of the sea level: Taller people have a higher chance that their head is still above the water line. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @02:35PM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday April 11 2015, @03:15PM
Years ago we were told that our tallness was due to residual growth hormones in all the dairy products we were fed excessively.
Maybe hormones made the men taller and hornier. That could explain the study's findings.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:09PM
Or a prosperous nation makes it easier for people to sustain a good life?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TGV on Saturday April 11 2015, @06:19AM
Well, while the rest of you are off in a slurfest, let me note one essential problem with this story: the data contains Dutch only. So it does not explain why the Americans or the Germans, Danish or Belgians grew up less.
Anecdotal: I'm Dutch. My daughter had a Chinese friend at school, whose parents had immigrated from mainland China, They were tiny: the father was around 1m50, possibly smaller. When I met them, they had three children, the oldest being a boy of 15, who had lived only briefly in China, and he was 1m80. So it might very well be that the environment has something to do with the quick growth.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday April 11 2015, @07:54AM
It must be a mutation caused by radiation on the flight from China to the Netherlands. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Saturday April 11 2015, @10:25AM
Maybe it's the traditional large use of dairy products?
Joris Driepinter advertisements (in Dutch) [wikipedia.org]
We were supposed to drink three pints of milk per day, because the television told us so. (And it helped get rid of the ridiculous milk overproduction, of course)
Still, I'll have to admit to maxwell daemon that there is also evidence for the "nose above the waterline evolution" hypothesis: people in Holland are taller than in Brabant, and Holland is the first to go when the Greenland ice cap melts. E.g. Normaal Amsterdams Peil (in Dutch) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @08:08AM
growing taller so they can look over the dikes at the ocean ...
(Score: 1) by bart on Saturday April 11 2015, @02:55PM
Hi all
I currently commute between Amsterdam and Avenhorn in the Netherlands. This is a commute between multi-cultural Amsterdam, and real old Holland. The difference in average height of the young people is remarkable. In Avenhorn I'd say the average young male is about 1.90m and the average young woman 1.80. Over there, I don't stand out at all.
In Amsterdam, where at least half the young population is not ethnic Dutch, they are much smaller on average.
Curiously, at the place I work, even the adults are likely to drink 2 glasses of milk at breakfast and lunch. To me the correlation is very obvious, and has a lot to do with drinking huge amounts of milk.
Funny enough, my mother is from this tall region, and two of her brothers are also 2 meters high, and they were born in the late 1930s, when that was still very rare. My height, for someone from 1963 is also rare, but right now, in North Holland, 2 meter is not rare at all.