One of the best way to choose good leaders is to erect a sign 6 feet tall and reject anyone who can walk under it without hitting his head.
While of course you will miss a few excellent short leaders, you are going to have a large pool of people who have already reached at least first base---and it's hard to win the game without base runners.
As they rightfully should. It is the only profession I could think of in which height is even slightly indicative of one's value as a leader.
Just out of curiosity, are you mostly inferring that it's women who haven't "reached first base" or men of average or below average stature? Or is it both?
You are misinterpreting me. (or perhaps I am simply being too obtuse.)
One of the characteristics of a male in a position of leadership is frequently his physical height. Human beings tend to look to certain attributes for a first approximation.
In any society you will find successful individuals who own the herd with the most goats or have similar measures of success in various areas of life.The attributes that correlate highly with certain types of successes can be studied.
I'm simply saying that if you have 10 people chosen at random who are over 6 feet tall and another group of ten who are under 6 feet tall, you will have a better chance (by probability alone) of finding a leader among the taller people.
And yes, Napoleon would not have made the cut.
This post was edited by tom jackson at April 22, 2017 2:09 PM MDT
Bob Hawke was a much better leader than Peter Garrett would have been - despite being almost a foot shorter. Stalin was taller than Roosevelt. Physical height has NOTHING to do with a person's ability to lead. Margaret Thatcher, "The Iron Lady", was a far better leader than her successor John Major, "The Tinfoil Man" (not that I had much time for either).
I have read that tall people tend to have doors open for them more often than those who are not. Women used to say they wanted someone "tall, dark and handsome". I don't know if they still do. I shall ask that question. Thank you for your reply tom and Happy Sunday! :)
For the most part, I avoid labeling and stereotyping. Recently, I've started using one as a sort of shorthand, though: Trumpite/Trumpette. Seems like that one word seems a sufficient way to quickly describe someone. : )
Some labels are descriptive in the most positive way SA. "Dependable, honest, witty, creative, modest, friendly". If the person using the label has a good heart and doesn't have an ax to grind it can be very informative. It can be a warning to stay away from someone as well. "Vindictive, spiteful, envious, dishonest" for example. But if someone refers to you as "outgoing, funny, friendly, helpful, unique, one-of-a-kind " I'm pretty sure it would please you. As with so many things "it depends" or "it's complicated". Thank you for your reply and Happy Sunday! :) I have lots of labels for The Donald. Doofus Donny, The Donald, the roly poly head of state. Others I think of that are not repeatable in polite company. You have a good imagination. I'm sure you can figger out some of them. I just read an email this morning from my sis before I got on Answermug and she came up with a really good one A DOOZIE!. I dare not repeat it here. SIGH. :(
Some labels are compliments. "Kind, thoughtful, caring, intelligent, helpful, resourceful". Some are not. I think labels are useful. They can be informative unless the person using them is doing so out of hatred. If so than nothing emanating from hate is useful. In my opinion. Thank you for your reply Sbf and Happy Sunday! :)
I dunno. Some stereotypes are solid! Latins are great lovers! French food is sublime. There is no one as motherly as a Jewish mother. Italian operas are the most lyrical. The Swiss are great at making chocolate, watches and staying neutral. The best scientists are German. Chicken soup cures everything. Beauty is its own excuse for being. You can't judge a book by its cover. Still waters run deep. The longest trip begins with the first step. The two magic words are please and thank you. When the going gets tough the tough get going. Thank you for your reply Sbf. I struggled to learn shorthand in high school and then one day it happened and after that it was a breeze. I don't know exactly WHAT it was that happened but something clicked and I was off and running. :)Would you rather eat a meal cooked by a Jewish mother or a Parisian model? I'll take the Jewish mother any day. I LOVE chopped liver and matzo balls that are light and fluffy and not like lead (the ones I've made are always leaden)! And so it goes! :)
Offal of any kind you can keep, including liver. I find it ghastly. Each to their own. I'd sooner a meal cooked by an Italian Mamma over a Jewish one. Tortellini alla panna. Penne carbonara. A Jewish mother won't come at either, the one requires ham, the other bacon. Ethnicity really doesn't affect motherhood, my own Mum was the most motherly person I ever met and her ethnicity was almost entirely Irish. Babies were her life's joy, and I'm absolutely certain she is holding a baby in the palm of God's hand at this very moment. She lived for her children, and then for her grandchildren - and was tragically taken from us two years before her first great-grandchild was born (my grandson is three months old).
tom jackson 