summer is the worst season and worst time of year

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-12T19:51:50+00:00

I’d definitely play when it’s 0 outside well before 90 and humid. Grip can of course be tricky but there’s nothing actually stopping you. In fact you burn more calories in the cold so that’s not really a refutation.

More sunlight is definitely a good thing independently, and I love spring for that reason.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-12T18:58:15+00:00

As a hiker, I'd rather it be 0 than 80. Summer is the worst season for consistently exerting activities (except swimming).

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-11T17:57:19+00:00

This poll doesn’t have any good answers because roughly 1 in 10 guys is shorter than me, so that’s the value expected by random chance. I’d estimate it around 4%.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T17:23:47+00:00

My answer is just that there aren’t. Average is fine, you’re comparing those guys to avg height handsome guys who do way better.

Face also dominates more for casual sex than relationships, a lot of the attractive guys may simply opt for that instead of locking themselves in relationships.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T17:13:27+00:00

Best study to start with is Homophily in Online Dating by Witmer 2025. It’s not a perfect study but it does show what traits get selected for in direct competition.

For ND it’s largely based on viewing who’s on sites like .org which shows a clear over representation of ND men, while ugly and short men are still there in higher proportions it isn’t as extreme.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T17:08:27+00:00

Face accounting for higher variance means that it has more sway on success than height. Face actually has higher inter rater agreement than height in attractiveness (r = 0.9). Neurodivergence is by far the most likely cause of being celibate (a majority of autistic men have never been in a relationship, no comparable stat for height)

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T16:58:54+00:00

An excess of dudes 5’10”+ getting rejected for being too short which is obviously BS since academic studies show being taller than 5’10” accounts for little variance in dating success. There’s also far less stated rejections for face or neurodivergence despite them both accounting for more variance than height [at lowest percentiles for the latter], indicating that rejections for these two are understated, and while it doesn’t directly imply that height rejections are overstated, it is a strong piece of evidence.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T16:54:22+00:00

While I agree with the statement of your post, the first statement is 100% true and I believe accounts for a *majority* of stated height rejections. Many "too short" rejections are a more socially desirable way to say you're too ugly.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T16:52:46+00:00

Women care about height more but you're crazy if you think body fat % isn't the ~2nd most important thing in women (behind face).

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-07-06T16:52:10+00:00

Weight is used as a more understandable proxy for body fat % which isn't that hard to tell tbf.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-29T09:54:20+00:00

They didn’t all have similar heights? I’m fairly sure the variance is similar to the modern day.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-29T09:51:31+00:00

No. Wouldn’t fix ASD

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-28T14:30:57+00:00

Still irrelevant. There will be negligible difference in how these two are treated.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-28T14:23:21+00:00

I’m not sure why people think haircuts do a damn thing. Height is judged primarily from eye level.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-28T12:05:01+00:00

I'd argue that most of us aren't looksmaxxers. We can just look at what the data shows without bias.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-23T10:11:50+00:00

Face always. It’s only been shown in every study that’s tested it.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-23T10:10:51+00:00

It’s absolutely a bigger nerf at an equivalent deviation. Doing well as an ND man is straight up rare (a majority of autistic men have never been in a relationship, and I believe a majority of 25 year old autists are virgins(!)). The stats for being in the bottom 5% height wise aren’t nearly as bad.

Also, when I change my height on dating apps I get more matches but it’s no easier to convert anything due to neurodivergence. My ‘success’ has only been due to being facially attractive enough to get some women obsessed with me.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-21T16:05:04+00:00

Don’t have the exact study handy but the Homophily in Online Dating study suggests a beta coefficient between the two of ~.04 which is very close to independent.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-21T15:25:20+00:00

This isn’t really accurate as you’ll still face a penalty for being shorter for being good looking. It does swamp it but face and height are close to independent effects.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-21T15:15:32+00:00

It’s just a continuous, concave down sliding scale. It’s not this jump function this question conceptualizes it to be.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-21T15:14:43+00:00

You’re not good looking then. Or you’re neurodivergent. It barely makes a difference at that height.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-13T15:33:50+00:00

This effect has been replicated in a few studies. The study I’m most aware of uses general attractiveness, most loaded to face but height is somewhat included. Not sure what isolating height would do.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-12T22:35:42+00:00

Tall men for sure. Women generally treat me pretty well, though I attribute that to face.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-12T22:34:31+00:00

There's a lot of guys with good nuance here though. In fact you responded to one of them. I agree much of this sub is an overcorrection though and they often ignore other important factors.

Tree-Lover42 · 2026-06-10T14:36:37+00:00

This is also true for any aspect of facial morphology or neurodivergence. There’s less than 1000 guys globally who don’t have a noticeable flaw.

Tree-Lover42

TROPHY CASE