In August, two Princeton economists released a study titled “Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes.” The aim of the paper, by Anne Case and Christina Paxson, was to attempt to explain why tall people generally earn more than short people. The question is not a new one. More than a hundred years ago, social scientists established the correlation between height and socioeconomic status, and they’ve been trying to solve the enigma of what has been called the “height premium” ever since. In 1915, a study found bishops to be taller than preachers and sales managers to be taller than salesmen. A 1968 paper identified peer perception as a cause of the earning discrepancy. Separate studies in 1993 and 2006 concluded that discrimination is a key factor. Case and Paxson’s work presents another explanation: On average, taller people earn more because they are smarter.

The study was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan think tank in Cambridge, Massachusetts. During the paper’s first week on the N.B.E.R.’s Web site, it was downloaded by a handful of academics and government types. The authors received e-mails from fellow-economists who sent brief accolades such as “This is great” and “Fascinating” and “I didn’t know this” and “WOW”—the resonant pings of quiet kudos in academe.

A week later, Reuters published a story on the paper under the headline “TALLER PEOPLE ARE SMARTER—STUDY.” Within days, Case and Paxson had received dozens and dozens of e-mails from outraged readers. “I have no idea if it was the fact that women had written the study, but half of the ones I got were from short men,” Case said the other day. “Some of them were actually obscene.” Most of the e-mails were hostile: “Shame on you!” scolded one man (4' 9"). “I find your hypothesis insulting, prejudicial, inflammatory and bigoted,” said another (5' 6"). “You have loaded a gun and pointed it at the vertically challenged man’s head” (no height given). “I want to thank you and your colleague for perpetuating the crusade against short people” (5' 6"). “On a personal note it was very nice to be reminded that I really am a loser and will never be held in ‘high’ esteem by society” (5' 4"). “LEAVE THIS ALONE YOU’RE NOT HELPING ANYBODY,” another read.

The Reuters article ran at three hundred and sixty-three words (the study was fifty-one pages) and simplified the connection that the economists had drawn between height and intelligence. Paxson and Case, who specialize in children’s health, theorize that if children experience optimal health and nutrition they will fulfill the maximum height and intelligence of their genetic destiny. In other words, a person genetically programmed to be six feet four who reaches only six feet two because of poor nutrition is not necessarily smarter than someone who with optimal nutrition has reached his full height potential of five feet four.

“We both felt genuinely distressed,” Paxson said of the reaction. “A lot of people were concerned with how tall I was”—she is five feet nine and Case is five-eight. “The idea that we would have written it any differently had we been five feet two is frustrating.” She went on, “It’s sort of like if you’re driving and somebody thinks you did something wrong and they give you the finger. You know you didn’t do anything wrong, but you also feel, like, how could they think that of me?”

Several of the angry e-mailers struck a defensive note, including details such as I.Q. scores and Mensa memberships. “I am successful and easily the most intelligent person of my peers; both socially and professionally” (5' 6"). One mother announced, “I have a son who graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law School. He is short and rich and very very smart.”

Among the accusations of discrimination, there was also pathos: “I have had to deal with bullies all my life, since first grade, and I encounter them even now (I am 61),” wrote one man. “I’m 5' 6", but I’m not subhuman,” another said. Some writers simply wanted the scientists to know that the study hadn’t shaken their faith in short people. Great short people in history were enumerated—Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Aristotle Onassis, Prince. The most upbeat message came from the tallest correspondent: “I realize that men my height, 6' 11", are statistical anomalies, but I’m curious to know if your findings suggest that a seven-footer would be exponentially smarter and thereby wealthier than a six-footer or even a five-footer?”