Looks like there’s some lying going on, lol

      • waz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I used to say I was 5’ 15". The number of times people would say “no way, your at least 6 feet” or something similar is amazing.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    6’1" is also lower than the other side of the curve, which suggests people just like to round up or down to 6’.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      It actually makes a lot of sense, to me anyway, why the left portion would be more heavily weighted.

      6’-0” and up is pretty rare as far as the world goes. 6’-5” is kinda the ceiling for humans barring some exceptions and there are plenty of reasons to stop growing on the way to it while there isn’t really any way to grow bigger.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I bet, but even I think that and I’m much shorter. Most of my life I’ve phrased it as I’m taller than average but not tall. But people seem to be shrinking faster than I am: it really seems like I’m taller than more and more people as time goes on

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just using this data to show how stupidly wealth is currently distributed in the country assuming 5’11" or 1.8 meters average if we converted this into 2022 wealth values with average income of 61,136, top 1% as 785,968 (12.9x), and 0.1% 2.8 million (458x) the top 1% height would be 23.22 meters and 0.1% would be 824.4 meters tall.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Naturally occurring normal numeric distributions will tend towards a bell shape, or curve, as you acquire observations. Artificial distributions like income will follow a different curve that is sometimes difficult to visualize especially when the differences are measured in millions or billions. It’s easier to visualize the differences in artificial distributions if you use a natural distribution as a familiar basis.

        Tl;Dr Do you think Paul Bunyan and Paul Blart are related?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is a nicely symmetric bell curve but a similar wealth distribution graph will show a miles long tail

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m 5’11" without shoes and I can’t imagine why anyone would lie about that lol like why wouldn’t you just say your 6’ tall at that point if you’re lying anyway?

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m 5’11"and I like to say “I’m 6’ when I wear my heelys.” People aren’t ready for it. They especially aren’t ready when I actually heely away.

  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    As someone closer to 6’1" usually, I just go with 6’ because it’s easier. It’s funny that both ends of 6’ seem to just report 6’. The shorter side seems more likely to do this, obviously, but I think there’s a lot of people like me who just choose the slightly easier option too. I’d be curious if you got the same anomaly if multiple foot markers were within the majority of the normal distribution.