>>13170842>None whatsoeverNo there was a lot. But besides hearsay, arranged marriages, according to
>>13170753,
where a thing in East Asia, which is what I was addressing, making his or your claim that arranged marriages are a cause for truncated Asian heights wrong, Arranged marries in Europe aren't really relevant, it didn't need to be mentioned.
>Not in premodern history, because blah blah blah my ass.No, even more so in premodern history, where only the richest few would reach (closer to) their phenotype height. For example, peasants where severely vitamin D deficient during the winters, due to their uniform diets of essentially whatever crops they where growing, hence the intense selection for Anglo Saxon traits (fair skin, blue eyes, fair hair.) Because of the perception of height and wealth, people that happen to be taller as well for genetic reasons will be positively perceived just as much as those, who because environmental reasons, achieved their height, which would contribute to the underlining association between height and wealth.
>where your public perception is enhanced by heightwhy would that be any different in premodern history? you wouldn't have mainstream blah blah to showcase it, but people will still see you in person.
>Arranged marriages resulted in near 100% of men getting wivesEven if every man gets married off, the richer, more well off families would have more surviving offspring, thus selection still takes place.
