>>12503729>>12503543>I think the height and weight is about nutrition and proper developmental healthif the weight is in healthy BMI range, in the case of doing analysis the BMI or "BMI relative to optimum" would be a decent feature.
>if you're tall you are more likely to have been properly fed this is not a deal in western nations as starvation does not exist, there are no prolonged hunger periods anymore, i dont think that "properly fed" is a good classification i would instead go for something like "nutrition/quality of nutrition"
more discrete: healthy and balanced diet VS McDicks as possible extrema, as undernourishment is not such an issue as poor eating habits.
i would also wager that at a certain point caloric intake becomes negatively correlated with academic performance, without bothering to pull articles out of my ass.
>if you're fat you are less able to controla hen-egg problem, what is first; the fatty or his poor impulse control
i would go with the latter.
this quite popular experiment should be related to significance of impulse control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment>which correlates with self control and intelligencewell you are using a bit of circular logic in the last two lines, even if i would agree with the overall sentiment.
the important fact in my opinion is impulse control and perhaps an amount of self reflection that is seemingly exclusive to more gifted individuals.
i see the fatness more as a manifestation of poor habit, discipline etc. (which obv. has adverse effects on other parts of life).
perhaps its even fair to go as far to say that fatness is a physiognomic manifestation of inferior mind and also unfavourable genetic predisposition.
fatties being repulsive rationalized and that on christmas!
crazy times.
>>12503729>shocking news: "local anon attempts to do eugenics at home">(click to pay 7.99 for a monthly subscription to read the article) 
