# Race and Genital Size **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 23, 2001, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828 "2001-11-23T01:15:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/161 "2001-12-02T13:58:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > I contend that a size difference of 1/3 of one inch or less would not be considered remarkable. Furthermore, I’m not convinced it would be perceivable at a glance, at a distance of (say) 10 feet. > [@](#): > > I contend that folklore implies that the B/W shlong size differential is larger. I would quibble with the second sentence. But I agree with you that it is not “remarkable”, and that folklore would imply a larger difference. But this is not surprising - in fact it would be surprising if popular perception did _not_ exxagerate the difference. > [@](#): > > the severe sampling problems in Kinsey’s survey I believe this issue was brought up by Collouunsbury earlier - I consider it speculative. Could you explain on what basis you assert that there were “severe sampling problems in Kinsey’s survey”? > [@](#): > > I also don’t rule out the possibility that the folklore is hokkum. Indeed, in my experience ( [www.snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com) ), much of folklore is. I am quite sure this is accepted by all sides here. > [@](#): > > Finally, I’d like to emphasize a wider point, familiar to those who’ve taken statistics. “Statistical significance” is a technical term, which might be better translated as “statistically perceivable”. It is a result of as much the power of the test (or the size of the sample) as of the characteristics of the underlying population. There can be very small differences between 2 populations that are nonetheless statistically perceivable. This would seem to be incorrect. “Statistical significance” is not about being “statistically perceivable” - rather, it is a measure of the likelihood that the test could be reflecting random fluctuations, as opposed to being a genuine reflection of the underlying population. Nonetheless, your final sentance above is true. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/162 "2001-12-02T14:40:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JillGat \* > \*\* On the other hand, when somebody asks which kid on the soccer field is mine (and all the kids are the same size and wearing the same uniform) and I say,“he’s the black kid,” people sometimes look a little uncomfortable hearing me describe him by his “race,” but _everyone_ knows which kid he is (…the best looking kid on the team). \*\* I live that life, **Jill**. Although, in deference to your kid, I’ll say my kid is the best looking kid on HER team 😃 . When someone asks who my daughter is, I simply say, " she’s the Korean kid". They always look disarmed a bit but most cover nicely ( I’m white, as is the Wifestrocity ). I feel like in the age of being OVERLY P.C., we’ve lost the ability to be truthful. My kid is the tall scrawny one with blonde hair? Shit, why can’t I SAY, " Oh she’s the tall one who’s blonde"?? My kid’s the black kid, or the Korean kid, or the whatevered kid? I should be allowed to say as much. It’s a pity that we don’t live in the same town as my second cousins, they’re black. It’d be a rich moment in the lilywhite town I live in to have someone ask whose kid is whose, and I’d be able to say, " well, that Korean kid is mine and that black kid is my neice ". Here endeth the Hijack. As for the O.P.? **Biggirl** , I don’t care how well hung you are. I think it’s VERY nice of that wonderful husband of yours, to let you keep his penis on the computer table in a jar of fomaldehyde. Man, that’s amore !!! 😃 Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/163 "2001-12-02T15:03:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CRorex \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > > \*\*The thing is this information, these racial “truths” do much more harm than good. They do things like lead doctors to misdiagnos on the basis of race. They lead to the bad science shown in the heart desease drug study. They foster the idea that somehow the different races are seperated from each other. That there are some biological realm of the Asian, Black, Whites and Reds when there simply is not. \*\* > > Umm > > Population genetics has shown that certain genes are shifted to certain populations due to ‘closed breeding systems’ or regional external selective pressures (which due to the historic trends of marrying from within one’s subgroup of humanity…) kinda disproves the general statement made above. > > If subtype A has a .001 % incidence of disease X and subtype B has a .05 % incidence of disease Y then being able to link phenotypic variences between A and B will aid in figuring exactly why the hell they had their asses drug into the ER by the paramedics. \*\* Populations are not races, at least not in the classical sense. If you want to say “subtype A” has .001% incidence of disease X and be accurate, you have to define what you mean by “subtype A”. And this is exactly where you get the bad science. You cannot assume “subtype A” is black or white or red or whatever. Diagnosing by phenotypic variences is bad doctoring, especially in the United States where most Americans belong to the subtype Mutt. And I’ll let someone deal with the “closed breeding system”. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/164 "2001-12-02T17:43:13Z")
Races are not valid populations from a taxonomic or genetic sense. There are Africans that are more closely related to most Europeans than they are to other Africans, even though both Africans look ‘black.’ This is true of all races. They are not monophyletic groups. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/165 "2001-12-03T01:25:56Z")
Just to elaborate on Dr. Lao’s post (for my fellow non-biologists), my dictionary defines “monophyletic” as “developed from a single ancestral type”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Could you explain on what basis you assert that there were “severe sampling problems in Kinsey’s survey”? > > A more nuanced position was fleshed out by flowbark and Sterra in this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=72874](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=72874) Briefly, Kinsey did not use conventional methods of stratified sampling. Instead he used the following method: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*From \* [http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html](http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html) 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the “College Sample.”) Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.) > > The above was not a random sample by any stretch of the imagination. But I sympathize with Kinsey’s difficulties. The primary focus of his study was behavioral and not anatomical; it appears that he chose to address the self-selection problem at the expense of creating a truly random sample. > > Still, it was a pretty good first attempt, IMHO. > > > [@](#): > > > > _flowbark_: Finally, I’d like to emphasize a wider point, familiar to those who’ve taken statistics. “Statistical significance” is a technical term, which might be better translated as “statistically perceivable”. It is a result of as much the power of the test (or the size of the sample) as of the characteristics of the underlying population. There can be very small differences between 2 populations that are nonetheless statistically perceivable. > > _Izzy_: This would seem to be incorrect. “Statistical significance” is not about being “statistically perceivable” - rather, it is a measure of the likelihood that the test could be reflecting random fluctuations, as opposed to being a genuine reflection of the underlying population. Nonetheless, your final sentance above is true. \*\* It appears that some Bayesian thinking was creeping into my characterization. I propose to postpone the statistical discussion for some other forum. (It may be postponed for a while, this SD stuff is one heck of an addictive activity and I’m afraid I may need to go cold turkey again. 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/166 "2001-12-03T01:32:04Z")
Actually, most of the Kinsey discussion that I had last June in [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=72874](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=72874) was with DMC. That’s all. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/167 "2001-12-03T04:01:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flowbark \* > Briefly, Kinsey did not use conventional methods of stratified sampling. Instead he used the following method: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*From \* [http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html](http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html) 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the “College Sample.”) Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.) > > The above was not a random sample by any stretch of the imagination. I beg to differ. When discussing the possible sample bias of a test, the only relevant issue is if the sample was biased with regards to that which the test is being done for. If you were dwelling on sexual behaviour and attitude, there is ample reason to suspect that the sample tested by Kinsey might be biased with regards to these. But there is no reason to suspect that there might be differences between younger adults with some college education and others with regards to genital size, so the sample would be expected to be representative with regards to this issue. (I’ll give you that age might be a _small_ factor.) Furthermore, the issue here is not actual genital size - rather, it is the comparison between Whites and Blacks. Unless you have reason to believe that the samples of Whites and Blacks were drawn from different population strata (i.e. strata that would differ with regards to genital size irrespective of race) then the samples hold up, and can be expected to reflect actual differences. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2001, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828/168 "2001-12-03T06:37:31Z")
Gotta admit my ignorance here, Izzy. If they were measuring height or weight, I’d have strong reservations. Height is correlated with childhood nutrition which is correlated with income which is correlated with college attendance, especially for those who were 18 in the 1940s or early 1950s. Weight is correlated with eating habits which is also related to socioeconomic status. I have no idea what penis size is correlated with, if anything. A reasonable way of addressing this issue would be a regression, possibly a weighted one. Some medical knowledge would be helpful as well. My inclination is to assume that the college population of the 1940s and early 1950s might differ in a variety ways from the general population, as it made up a fairly small fraction of the same. But that’s an inclination only. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-and-genital-size/94828.md?page=8)