>

Just so I'm not assuming, when you say "these imbalances," are there imbalances that you're leaving out? I'd like to hear more of this view point.
/u/ToppedYaByAccident (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You’re not accounting for the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. It’s not just that tall men with deep voices are unconsciously taken more seriously and regarded as leaders; it’s also that, as these men are growing up, they notice that and begin to regard themselves as leaders in turn. 
So, as a confounding factor for your two statistical arguments, which only can illustrate data trends, not explain them, one could add: short men with higher-pitched voices are less likely to be leaders because they have been less likely to be regarded as leaders by others and so they don’t come to regard themselves as that as frequently as tall, lower-pitched voice men do. 
If you account for the feedback between self-regard and other-regard, you can’t just unambiguously separate “quality” from bias; it turns out that people who fit the natural bias are those who come to possess the qualities in question. >

But as you said, they notice these things, which means that their parents and peers are perpetuating these biases, right? >

Sure, but my underlying point is that you can’t reduce the bias to merely a matter of people’s primitive preferences at work. Rather, the bias is corroborated by its producing the kind of people who conform to it upon noticing its working in their favor. This means that even if you could convince people to recognize the bias as primitive, an evolutionary hand-me-down, it wouldn’t really matter. The choice of tall, deep voiced people would still find corroboration as a good one because those people are the ones who’ve come to regard themselves as leaders and to exhibit the traits of leadership just as a matter of habit.
If it sounds like the argument is circular, it is, but that’s a generic figure of how social facts work. Their arbitrariness (e.g., we could live in a world where short kings lead, idk) has to do with them having their basis in custom, which, in turn, has to do with them having held true in the choice. The basis in custom lends them objectivity as “facts,” where objectivity means that they hold true at the population-level, such as your statistics illustrate. >

I understand that teaching people that these biases are primitive may not work if the bias works in their favor. I may be splitting hairs and possibly speaking irrelevantly or getting too granular; a common saying is that everything must end.
What if a man who has benefitted from these biases has children, but the children are mentally disabled? Or they're not tall and have high-pitched voices; wouldn't they want to subscribe to judging people based on quality, or would they wallow over that which worked for them but won't work for their children?
I think you can break this thinking by telling people that genetics could and possibly will eventually "break," and holding onto the ideas of what strong is will be of great detriment to them.But I may also be underestimating man's ego. >

That wouldn’t work because there would still be other corroborating reasons to believe that tall, deep-voiced men are good leaders: the strongest would be that statistically-speaking, they are, and so you’d be asking people to act against the evidence of their experience.
An alternative strategy wouldn’t be to try and contest a “social fact,” as that rarely work; rather, it’s to offer a different interpretation of existing social practices, so as to make them legible as acts of leadership. 
Social movements have taken that tack in the past, by the way. “Servant leadership,” “horizontal leadership,” “leading with kindness,” etc, are interpretations of behavior that, in the past, wouldn’t have been recognized as styles of leadership. Then, once you have a term, you can corroborate the effectiveness of the style through statistical analysis on the population level. That analysis would make salient features in individuals that would otherwise have been devalued as traits of a future leader: an instance of this would be how we now value (largely in women) a warmer interpersonal style, one that solicits feedback from everyone, as a leadership trait, albeit for a different style of leadership than that expected of deep-voiced, tall men.
So, what the short kings and their advocates need to do is: (1) offer an interpretation of a behavior the kings  already practice that construes it as a leadership trait; (2) demonstrate through quantitative analyses that the trait yields benefits consistently, that is, on a population level; (3) correlate those results to traits that the individuals possess that would explain the behavior. I don’t speak for the kings, though, as I’m 6’ 1” … >

How do you propose we change human nature?
Why would you want your view changed to appearance and vocal tone should be a major factor in deciding on leaders?
Of course we shouldn't rely on those things, but we do because that's how human brains are wired to varying degrees for different individuals. >

Thank you for your reply.
We are aware that we think a certain way instinctually, and if we're aware of something, we can change our thinking through practice. Some of those practices are forced but lean on how our brain's first thoughts will lead to harm. My brain's wired to have sex with things, but I don't insert myself into or onto everything I can. I could catch a disease, start a relationship with someone psychotic, start an inappropriate relationship with someone "younger," if you catch my drift, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong, but these things don't happen because the experiences and behavioral optimizations created by others have taught me better. Our brains, in their original state, don't think that "Character Counts," but elementary schools implemented that to teach us good character or attempt to.
As for your first question, I don't know honestly. I'll think about that.
Edit: doo doo formatting lol >

firstly, you yourself invoke value in "stronger".  A CEO is not valuable because of their strength. you seem to have fallen prey to the very idea you critique here.  Perceived or real strength should not matter for a CEO (if it does, then you'd be in trouble because the actual correlations between height and strength are pretty real up until about 6'1, but even then a 6'3" is going to be stronger than a 5'9" person, on average - the correlation in strength increase relative to height increase decreases beyond 6'1ish.)
secondly, the practical requirement of a CEO to be a leader necessitates that they be able to lead in the context of the flawed humans who carry the ideas about height.  I think you misrepresent the challenge here as a "hiring problem" when it's really a chicken and egg problem.  That's not to say it's not a real problem, but in a crazy-world sense do you want to a hire a CEO that your people aren't going to follow?  This isn't a great excuse, and therefore I agree with the "should" in a justice sense, but disagree in the pragmatic sense. >

Could you elaborate on your final point, please? Specifically the first sentence? >

This might get removed, because it's not exactly a counter argument, but...
If you'd like to learn more about the history and development of good decision-making, I'd recommend looking into "Choosing by Advantages" by Jim Suhr, and "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. In short, most people go through life using easy, instinctive decision making processes, rather than considering their lives and choices with a consistent process. This applies to everything from job selection to diet choice to the ballot box. It's no one's fault, there just hasn't been a sound, consistent, understandable decision making process for people to learn until very recently in history. >

I actually find this to be a solid counter argument...could you please elaborate on why it's no one's fault though? 
And thank you for the book recs. >

It's "no one's fault" because most people aren't really aware that there are decision-making methods worth learning. A common response to Choosing by Advantages, for instance goes along the lines of "I'm a successful person who has made important decisions for all of my life. Why do I need to learn this?"
The bottom line is that decision-making needs to be learned from an early age, and parents or teachers often do their best to teach decision-making skills they way they learned and understand them. Many people, for instance, learn the idea of "weighing pros and cons" from an early age. Methods like these have had a lot of success, but have only recently been shown to introduce biases or mistakes, especially in more complicated decisions - where they're most heavily relied on. Choosing by Advantages represents an attempt to standardize decision-making terminology, and focus a person's mind on the importance of differences between alternatives. For instance, when choosing by pros and cons, you may end up with a list with "low gas mileage" on one side, and "high gas mileage on the other." As Kahneman showed, this "double counting" will not only exaggerate the difference between two vehicles, it will actually introduce an aversion bias against the car with lower mileage.
Even accounting for some of the more complex, somewhat successful decision-making methods, most people go through life relying mostly on their "fast" system (as Kahneman would say), which has evolved primarily to quickly identify threats. The fast system jumps to conclusions and activates reflexes to try to keep one safe. It's only by reexamining these reflexes with our "slow" system that most people can come to better conclusions, especially when complex social or monetary issues are involved. Many on the far right, for instance, value a certain kind of safety above all else. Safety for their culture or lifestyle can be their chief concern, above any regard for equality, or the safety of strangers. From this mindset, the "fast" system encourages them to support leaders who promise protection, whether physical, cultural, or "moral." It would only be by engaging their "slow" systems and examining whether or not these leaders actually deliver on these promises (not to mention the much more difficult question of whether these promises are reasonable) that they may come to realize that different choices in leadership might result in better personal and global outcomes.
Edit: a good concrete example would be Trump's promise to "build a wall." People who support that concept are typically afraid of Mexican or South American immigration for one reason or another. They see the idea of a wall as a protection of their culture, livelihood, families, or a combination thereof. Promises from DC of "immigration reform" often don't sound concrete enough, and their "fast" systems don't take into account things like long term crime statistics, global politics, or long term economic outcomes in areas with or without immigration. >

I don't mean to be off-topic with what I'm about to say. I want to respond to your example with the hope of drawing out more conversation and information.
Doesn't conservatism eventually fail; it always felt like anti-progress, which isn't how America was made, right? We applied technologies and knowledge of different cultures to meet our goals and met them at fast rates.
In a way, the ideology or thinking, rather, that I'm against is conservative and almost anti-human progress. I can't counter the example of the fast and slow system. It doesn't completely eradicate my feelings toward what I've posted, but I still want to give you a Δ, or a half one (lol), because you make profound points about why we have these biases in the first place and why they're so difficult to change.
So Δ because of the paragraph about choosing advantages and how they permeate our thoughts and decision-making.
Side note: Not sure if this is against the sub's rules, but even though I awarded a delta, I stand by my CMV and am open to more comments and opposition. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bug_the_bug (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Leadership requires confidence. The people you described will likely be more self confident and this step up to the challenges of leadership more frequently. You are correct that these superficial characteristics don’t necessarily make these people better or more capable leaders but often they have much more practice in leadership roles that does make them at least somewhat more capable. >

I think this touches on my point where I say that people with these characteristics get more opportunities and therefore, get more experience. >

Appearance and vocal tone are a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, almost every US President in modern history was either funny-looking or had a weird voice, or both. >

LMAO!! So you're saying they were "distinct," looking more so than being tall and having a deep voice? >

No, "~~district~~ distinct" is not the word I would use to describe the appearance of most of them. Many of them were funny-looking, and the ones who weren't looked average. And most of the ones who looked average had weird voices.
There are maybe a few exceptions. >

Sorry, I think if you look again, my word was "distiNCT" >

Sorry, auto-correct error. "Distinct" is not the word that comes to mind when I look at our best-known leaders. I'll stick with "funny-looking" >

The truth is that most CEOs, elected officials, local leaders etc. are not really chosen by grassroots movements or meritocratic processes at all.
Corporate ownership and leadership are often determined by nepotism and inheritance. Access to think tanks, campaign funds, and political “connections” are also skewed in favor of people who are already tapped into elite circles - consider legacy admissions at the Ivies and T10 law schools that produce the largest number of viable Presidential candidates in the US.
Given how strongly factors like height, race, biological sex etc. correlate with deterministic privilege, it’s not surprising that the candidates for such positions are overwhelmingly homogenous. Some people argue that we need to use representation and affirmative action to “correct” these imbalances but they’re also such deeply systemic issues that we need more than just a re-evaluation of leadership. The most reliably effective way of dismantling these imbalances is equal access to education and basic opportunities, as well as a genuine un-learning of unfounded cultural stigma vis à vis toxic masculinity at its roots.