In guys, it’s the attitude that they have to be extra masculine to “make up” for being less than average height. This usually comes off as gratingly cocky and insecure at the same time.
it's only called that because the same exact behaviour is suddenly not an issue anymore when you're 6 feet and above. That 'Napoleon complex' has also been mostly debunked as a myth and it's much more likely that we simply notice negative behaviour more / stronger in people who lack features that are generally considered attractive to the other sex (studies like these are mostly done with heterosexuals because homosexuals are such a small sample size within the greater society that they're better served having an exclusive study for them). It's how cute looking girls get away with all kinds of shit. Same principle applies.
you know... can't even check that much and obviously showing a total ignorance on the topic, but you want to talk about studies and truth. Good job. Even the research that found some evidence merely suggest different strategies, not actually more aggressive behaviour e.g. much smaller men who are physically outmatched go about climbing the dominance hierarchy in different ways.
The only thing that the Napoleon complex proves is that insecure people who have very little going for them will always try to pick a few 'below average' measurements off the 'enemy' and make up all kinds of negative shit about it. Height, baldness, lack of facial hair, lack of muscle etc. are all rather idiotic ways to judge people and their behaviour on.
The article cites one study that indicates short men aren't more aggressive towards other men and one study that indicates shorter men behave more aggressively towards taller men. So evidence seems pretty clearly mixed:
In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) is likely to be a myth. The study discovered that short men were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height. The experiment involved subjects dueling each other with sticks, with one subject deliberately rapping the other's knuckles. Heart monitors revealed that the taller men were more likely to lose their tempers and hit back. University of Central Lancashire lecturer Mike Eslea commented that "when people see a short man being aggressive, they are likely to think it is due to his size, simply because that attribute is obvious and grabs their attention."[7]
The Wessex Growth Study is a community-based longitudinal study conducted in the UK that monitored the psychological development of children from school entry to adulthood. The study was controlled for potential effects of gender and socioeconomic status, and found that "no significant differences in personality functioning or aspects of daily living were found which could be attributable to height";[8] this functioning included generalizations associated with the Napoleon complex, such as risk-taking behaviours.[9]
Abraham Buunk, a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claimed to have found evidence of the small man syndrome. Researchers at the University found that men who were 1.63 metres (5 ft 4 in) were 50% more likely to show signs of jealousy than men who were 1.98 metres (6 ft 6 in).[5]
In 2018, evolutionary psychologistMark van Vugt and his team at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam found evidence for the Napoleon complex in human males. Men of short stature behaved more (indirectly) aggressive in interactions with taller men. Their evolutionary psychology hypothesis argues that in competitive situations when males, human or nonhuman, receive cues that they are physically outcompeted, the Napoleon complex psychology kicks in: physically weaker males should adopt alternative behavioral strategies to level the playing field, including showing indirect aggression and coalition building.[10]
how is it mixed? NC is about aggression, the Buunk study looks at jealousy in extremly short people, like 10th percentile short. And the other study just proves the existence of dominance hierarchies and strategies. Given that we already do know that attractive people are preferred at work and given that height in males is considered a very high ranking part of attractiveness, it becomes obvious that competition in the workplace will be fiercer towards taller men. But it does not prove that it's because short men have issues - it proves that there is a disadvantage to being short that has to be compensated by strategies.
There are two studies on the topic disproving it. I made the most important part even more obvious, for all those especially challenged. Maybe you don't know how to click on a link or something?
In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) is likely to be a myth. The study discovered that short men were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height. The experiment involved subjects dueling each other with sticks, with one subject deliberately rapping the other's knuckles. Heart monitors revealed that the taller men were more likely to lose their tempers and hit back. University of Central Lancashire lecturer Mike Eslea commented that "when people see a short man being aggressive, they are likely to think it is due to his size, simply because that attribute is obvious and grabs their attention."[7]
The Wessex Growth Study is a community-based longitudinal study conducted in the UK that monitored the psychological development of children from school entry to adulthood. The study was controlled for potential effects of gender and socioeconomic status, and found that "no significant differences in personality functioning or aspects of daily living were found which could be attributable to height";[8] this functioning included generalizations associated with the Napoleon complex, such as risk-taking behaviours.[9]
about as hard as clicking on the link and reading the same exact thing right there on the front page. But I guess that just totally overstrained you. I mean, by god, you have to figure out if it's a left click or a right click - and where even is left and right and then there are so many other words. I get it, it's really confusing. Do you need me to find easier words than the text uses?
He’s probably short irl and overcompensating for it by being aggressive. I think there’s a pretty common complex that explains it, forget what it’s called though
958
u/merewenc Jan 08 '20
In guys, it’s the attitude that they have to be extra masculine to “make up” for being less than average height. This usually comes off as gratingly cocky and insecure at the same time.