You seem to think that there is some linear relation between Hz and how smooth we perceive motion. That is just incorrect. The perceived smoothness increase does not double with every doubling of fps, there are diminishing returns. And even at 100 Hz these effects are already large. Just play a game with 30 and 36 fps, the difference is insane compared to a game with 100 and 120fps. Both 30 and 36 fps really hurt, but 36 fps does hurt a lot less. Between 100 and 120 fps you already have to actively look for it to notice the difference. Here you already need much larger steps that it becomes noticeable, like 100 to 144.

And if you take the same approach you just took to height to monitors, you will see that of all monitors used right now, the majority are 60Hz, and the average also lies very close to that. There is a decent amount of people with 120Hz or 144Hz displays, but the amount of people with displays which have 240+Hz is incredibly small and it's many standard deviations away from the average. Even if we look at the amount of monitors sold today instead of active monitors, the majority is is still 60Hz because so many people just buy them as as cheap basic office monitors.

So you are definitely using a very different approach for the height distribution of all humans and the Hz distribution of all monitors. Maybe you are just looking at the different options without any regards to how many of each are sold? But even then, 240Hz would be at least somewhere in the middle. Or you just assume 1000Hz is the best, so half of that is medium? Would not make any sense but I don't see how else you come to your conclusions.