- Reaction score
Seems that way (girls boast about expecting tall men on social media all the time) but it's really not reality. A 5'5" guy who is athletic with great hair is going to f*** while a 6'4" balding slob isn't going to get the time of day.
That's an irrelevant comparison. You can also say that a tall, charismatic, and wealthy bald man will do better than a full-headed manlet loser. Comparing multiple aspects to one is by definition, lopsided.
Here's the better comparison:
1) How much better does an average 6'2 man do relative to an average 5'8 man?
2) How much better does the average man do as a fullhead than if he goes bald within the next year?
3) Which is the larger difference?
That way you're only comparing one change at a time versus one change at a time.
And even then it's not that meaningful. Because the 6'2 man would rather have hair than be bald, the 5'8 man would rather have hair than be bald, the man with hair would rather be 6'2 than 5'8, and the bald man would rather be 6'2 than 5'8. They're separate variables, and almost certainly independent variables. The correct answer to which you'd rather be is "6'2, with hair".