Small men have a reputation for being meaner, more aggressive and more likely to commit violent acts. This state of affairs has been associated with the syndrome of Napoleon's small or complex man. Aggressiveness would exist in any person, large or small in size, inclined to develop it. However, researchers have tried to prove, through tests, that small men would be more mean. But in reality, is this syndrome a myth or a reality?
Research has shown that small, tall men suffer from a complex of size and masculinity. As a result, they would seek to compensate for this lack by aggressive behavior, even to the point of committing acts of wickedness and violence.
Explanation of this phenomenon
The state of stress, generated by the feeling of inferiority related to the small size of the waist, would induce the men suffering from this complex to compensate for this deficiency by a behavior which can not be described as healthy and can go from the cheating and the malice to violence.
Indeed, researchers at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, have established a study published in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), according to which men undergoing stress and suffering from inferiority complex compared to their masculinity would be more likely to be violent and focused on addiction to drugs or even crime.
During this study, 600 men between the ages of 18 and 50 were asked about the perception of the male gender and the tendency to indulge in drugs or criminal addictions. Thus, the answer was not long in coming, since men with the feeling of being less masculine have demonstrated their tendency to commit violent aggression whether with or without weapons. On the other hand, researchers at Oxford University have stated that the syndrome of the small man is a reality.
Napoleon's Syndrome and polemics
It seems that today's society is more focused on bodily norms of both sexes. As a result, height has become a taboo subject for a large number of men. A larger size would be synonymous with manhood and strength and would appeal to the majority of women choosing to be protected and feel safe; which would piss off a large number of small men.
However, it would be unwise to generalize. Moreover, this notion of big or small differs from one country to another and from one era to another. Moreover, Napoleon was 1m68, which is considered an average size compared to the norm and can not be classified in the category of small men.
In addition, a recent gambling study has supplemented the thesis that men with smaller stature would behave more aggressively but only when it becomes necessary. Indeed, based primarily on the Dictator's game, it was found that the men who measured 1.70 meters kept an average of 14 pieces in their possession while the larger men kept only half. Moreover, and in another category of game, every man big or small had the right to choose the hot sauce to pour in the glass of his adversary and there the small men did not manifest more wickedness than the others .
As a result, the director of study, Jill Knapen, has concluded that small-sized men can behave badly and aggressively, but only if it does not cause harm to others. Also, is the violence assigned to small men a myth or a reality?
