I was having a conversation with my best friend and they said that the average height is a subject thing bc in order for it to be objective they need to have study or gotten all the heights from every man in American. I’m not certain how data or stats work. But maybe it’s objective only by those who have been tested on average? Idk how to explain it to them or if I’m wrong help me understand a bit better.
In: 0
Average height has a lot more underlying variables than most people realise. For instance –
Genetics. What heights were your parents or your grandparents? If no-one in your family has ever been over 6 feet tall going back 6 or 7 generations then the odds are that you never will be either.
Nutrition. How well were you fed and how healthy was it when you were in your formative years? Did you have a balanced and varied diet?
Poverty. Factors into nutrition, early development etc. Standard of living is a huge factor in how tall you grow. Was there neglect, insufficient food, parenting etc.
You might think this is all nothing, but just look at countries such as the Netherlands – after WW2 the country poured resources into food security because of child starvation during WW2 and now they are the tallest European country.
The question itself isn’t subjective. But you can only really get an objective answer by adding detailed data. So maybe the figures aren’t as detailed as they should be, so really they are incomplete datasets.
As a tangential point on this back in history Hunter Gatherers in Europe were on average around 6 feet tall mainly due to a varied and healthy diet. Early Neolithic farmers on the other hand were around 5 foot 6 inches tall mainly due to a restricted diet based on cereals and the animals they kept. So diet and environment are crucial in determining how tall you could be rather than are.
Latest Answers