The Most Depressing Graph EVER!

Study and data basis

The video argues—using a large speed-dating study dataset—that women’s dating preferences for men’s height are narrow and enforced more strictly than men’s preferences, creating extreme disadvantages for shorter men.

It claims the findings come from a massive study analyzing participants from:

• 174 speed-dating events
• about 5,782 participants
• 128,000 choices

Because height is presented as objectively measurable, the narrator treats the results as “black and white,” in contrast to more subjective traits like facial attractiveness.

Core “depressing graph” claim (competition rises fast with shorter height)

The video’s main chart is used to argue that the number of male competitors per available woman increases rapidly as men’s height decreases—framed as exponential:

• Around 170 cm: about 2 men competing per woman
• At 160 cm: about 11 men per woman

The reasoning given is that fewer women consider shorter men, while the supply of shorter men is relatively high.

Women’s preferences are narrower—and followed more strictly

The video emphasizes that women:

• Report a narrower preferred height range than men
• Are less likely to choose someone outside their stated range

The narrator claims women are about twice as likely as men to stick within their stated preference—interpreting this as: when women say a height range, they mean it, while men may appear more flexible.

Example calculation about acceptability (the “45%” point)

Using a separate third-party graph, the presenter argues that even near-average height men can face high rejection rates. Specifically, the narrator states that at about 174 cm (their referenced height), 55% of women would consider dating them and 45% would reject them based on height alone—depicted as “nuts,” especially since this is described as not far below average.

Women’s ideal height gap is larger than men’s (who “dictates” the market)

The video claims the study found:

• Men most often preferred women about 7 cm shorter
• Women most often said “yes” when a man was about 25 cm taller

It also states that the maximum likelihood of a match occurred at roughly 19.2 cm taller, which the narrator contrasts with men’s smaller gap.

The video interprets this as evidence that women set the dominant height standards and that men have less ability to “compromise upward.”

“Silver lining” (conditional hope, not a guaranteed fix)

The video concludes that while shorter men may struggle within the narrow context of speed dating, there could be eventual partial improvement because the pool of very tall men is finite.

The presenter suggests that once the tallest men are taken, some women may be forced to compromise and date shorter men—still framed as contingent, not guaranteed.

No “magic bullet,” plus one speculative workaround

The narrator says there’s no guaranteed solution, but offers two avenues:

1. Personal coaching via Patreon, presented as tailored advice and support.
2. “Geo-maxing”: moving to countries where the population is shorter, making an individual appear taller relative to local averages.

The video lists countries the narrator claims have some of the lowest average heights, including:

• Peru
• Sri Lanka
• Philippines
• Indonesia
• Bolivia

It warns that this could also make the dating situation tougher locally.

Side topic (relationship anxiety, unrelated to the height study)

Near the end, the video shifts to relationship/dating anxiety about a partner spending time alone with a male “orbiter” friend, and promotes another Patreon course as a “specific course of action.”

Presenters / contributors (as mentioned)

• The video presenter/narrator (unnamed in the subtitles)
• Wheat Waffles (referenced as the “black pill” figure whose interview and ideas are cited)