I’m sorry, I believe that would be hanged like an elephant.
Sheer boredom compelled me to use that exact search term. Sifting through the porn, I did find this:
So, Duck Duck Goose, it is a little-known stereotype that black girls have larger clitorises than white girls. (I like the idea of little-known stereotypes.)
The page has manifold excerpts relating to “Sexual Organs and Heterochronic Theory,” many of which are much more interesting. I like this one:
Is the clitoris really that hard to stimulate? And, more troubling to me, does this theory mean that my ability to tell when a woman is sexually inept can be blamed on my relatively small and hard-to-stimulate penis?
edwino, in your household, will the stockings be hanged by the chimney with care this holiday season? Clement Clarke Moore would not approve. 
(Or Henry Livingston, either.)
I’ve dated far more than a random sampling of Asian men, and it’s not true.
And, as to the question of black men, I would refer to you what my friend Vensive once told me, a black man (a very, very well-hung black man) who’d only ever dated white men (paraphrased):
Esprix
Just to recap, if French girls have bigger clits you’ll be worried about eating a Canadian dish…
.
.
Nope, still don’t follow.
Je veux dire des filles avec l’appartenance ethnique Française, pas filles avec la nationalité Française.
(Also, there are no European French dishes that provide such a handy pun on poontang.)
Izzy,
Standard deviations and sample sizes. Cecil was making a subtle statistical observation. “White” sample size very large. “Black” sample size very small. Observed average difference, .1 inches, fully erect. But the two groups of samples are going to have rather different standard deviations, that of the smaller group will be larger. Given no expected significant difference (genetics) in average size, I think you can see where this is going.
Frankly, such things (sexual items) are not, errr, well studied but analytically there is no reason to expect “race” differences in erect size. On the other hand, insofar as perhaps non-erect size might have some relation to climate (heat loss/retention), one might hypothesize a climate based relationship with, how to put this, “the hang.” Populations primarily derived from cold climate might show a tendency towards shrinkage. Of course, this won’t be racial insofar as warm-climate caucasoids should show similar patterns. Not that there’s much importance beyond, what shall we say, initial impressions? Of course this can lead us to the observation that given the clitoris doesn’t have temperature responses like male equipment, that there would be no reason to expect any coherent large population differences.
So long as I’m digging myself deeper, I’ll share the anecdotal observation from a gay amgio of mine with highly catholic tastes, so to speak. Strictly as a complement to Esprix’s observation. He was of the opinion given, how did he put it, substantial hands on experience that racial differences erect were just not there, but ‘tropical’ men did hang more.
BTW, I am sure Larry Mudd knows what kind of cite that is (Rushton citing a French army surgeon) and was merely providing it for the entertainment value. Good old race “science” at its worst.
I checked with my bio-statistician wife, Prof. December. She said:
-
The standard deviations of a sample depends on the standard deviation of the underlying population. There’s no reason to think that a smaller sample would have a larger standard deviation.
-
Using a T-test, a difference in average lengths of 0.4 sigma would be statistically significant.
Cecil didn’t say what the standard deviation of the flaccid penis length was. However, given a mean of 4 inches, I’d guess that sigma might be less than 0.8 inches.
IMHO the difference in penis length is questionable, because Kinsey wasn’t very professional in the way he did statistics. However, sample size is is not the main problem.
december - that piece about a smaller sample size not having a smaller sd is… very very very strictly speaking accurate. But disingenuous.
A smaller sample will have a large sample error - the sampling equivalent of a standard deviation. Admittedly the underlying sd doesn’t change, but I think that it is clear that it is s.e. being discussed here.
And s.e. goes with the square root of the sample size IIRC.
pan
Sorry, that should be “standard error”, not “sample error”.
Brainfart.
pan
Thanks for the clarification for the irony-deficient, Col. 
One nitpick though- I think race “science” is at it’s best when it’s confined to speculating about differences in the appearance of the genitals. (At least it’s good for a laugh.) When it strays from the topic, it’s just sad.
Yes, I was being sloppy, I should have written standard error (s.e.). However, insofar as one never knows the true standard deviation of any population (except when one has the entire population N as one’s sample) the observation is of technical interest only. As my econometrics professor said, many years ago: “Only God knows the true values of what you all are going to work with. Don’t forget that.”
As such, I usually simply refer to standard deviation since except for trivially cases, we never ever know the true s.d.
It may not be the main problem, indeed the main problem is probably selection bias, but neither is the comparision of two different sample sizes without the s.e. a trivial problem. The reason stats has the bad rep it does is precisely from ignoring these kinds of issues. That piece of shit Bell Curve is a beautiful illustration of such.
Larry, I got your tone and I hope I was being genuinely helpful. I agree, once one knows the dope, the race science folks have entertainment value. (Above all the utterly poorly theorized (in evolutionary sense) obsession with sexual organ size by these guys. It does suggest… issues with their own equipment, non?)
From the above, it seems to me that questions about race and genital size should not be dismissed out of hand. Maybe the answer is “we don’t know,” but IMHO, the question should not be dismissed out of hand.
As far as whether it’s worth discussing, I have to say that IMHO, one of the best uses of this bboard, is to discuss conventional wisdom, commonly held beliefs, etc., and try to debunk them or substantiate them.
kabbes and Collounsbury, you are both correct. I apologize for missing the point that the the term standard deviation was being used to mean standard error. I ought to have noticed that. 
For those uninterested in statistics, the “standard error” is the standard deviation of the sample mean, giving rise to the above joke.
However, Prof. December stands by her calculation of the sample size needed for statistical significance. Her formula was based on standard error.
What? Race as a genetically based issue has been thoroughly debunked. Insofar as any coherent (classic) race based physical differences must be genetic, we can dismiss out-of-hand.
Differences in more specific populations tied to actually supportable categories might exist, as I implied above, but on “race” in the classic White-Black-Asian or whatnot dichotomies is dead from a biological POV.
It’s been done, to death. All the evidence you can possibly digest, including the latest on population genetics.
December: no reason to apologize, I was the one being sloppy. I’m afraid in business apps one gets sloppy with stat terminology. Or the folks I’ve worked with do.
In re the sample sizes, both are above 30 and so we can guess they are likely to have statistical signif., however given problems of selection bias which in that day and age I think are non-trivial, I’d be hesitant to hang much on that one way or the other.
Duck Duck Goose, Collounsbury at al,
I’m not sure what your point is - the sample size issue was noted by Cecil, and I made sure to include that in my quote. But there is a world of difference between something that available evidence seems to support, albeit inconclusively, and something that can be said to be “incorrect” as JillGat declared it to be.
The point is, Izzy, that the data do not support a race difference. We find a tiny difference well-within the likely s.e. of the samples. (Abstracting away from the clear problems of comparision between the samples and the issues of selection bias) Taking that in the context of our present genetic data which clearly shows the classic races have no biological coherency, we can discount this on its face.
If one wants to look at possible differnces, they should, they must be based on good biology.
Who the hell let all these GDers into the pit? C’mon, folks, at least use some cuss words or something!
“The Fucking S.E. is(is not?) dependent on the goat felching sample populatopn size” or something. Geeze!
Well I disagree with this, and as Cecil does as well I find it strange that JillGat would declare outright that it is “incorrect”
This is the opposite of what you said earlier (in your response to lucwarm)
Pure speculation. Fine as opinion, but not to be confused with fact.
This would be more meaningful if these matters were fully understood, which as you seem to agree, they are not.
True. Also, if one wishes to declare that possible differences cannot exist - same story.
Headaches.
The point is, Izzy, that the data do not support a race difference.
[/quote]
Well I disagree with this, and as Cecil does as well I find it strange that JillGat would declare outright that it is “incorrect”
[/quote]
I could give a fuck what “Cecil” says as his columns on race have been either dead wrong or poorly informed, and inexcusabely so given their writing dates.
Here, on the other hand, if one knows stats, it seems to me “Cecil” is acknowledging the variation issue. Rather like a poll where Politician A is head of B by 1% and the s.e. of the poll is 3%. When one is within the standard deviation, there is no difference.
We find a tiny difference well-within the likely s.e. of the samples.
[/quote]
This is the opposite of what you said earlier (in your response to lucwarm)
[/quote]
No it isn’t, what the fuck you talking about? My comments in re the sample sizes and s.e.s were in regards to the issue that the two samples are definately going to have different standard errors. There are clear comparability issues there such that it renders reliance on the samples rather suspect. However, given the size of the samples, it also seems clear that we can expect the s.e.s to be large enough to cover a .1 inch difference.
Hardly the opposite, it’s a different motherfucking issue: relative comparision of the 2 s.e.s versus the size of the s.e.s against the actual difference in the samples.
Perhaps Izzy you should reread and try to understand the discussion better. There is no aspect of opinion in the issues of comparision between the two samples, it is a statistical issue. Not that there are not ways to possibly deal with this, but putting up two samples of different sizes without understanding the s.e.s and issues of selection bias is a problem. Straight-up science there, no opinion. Fact.
As for selection bias, that is also fact: selectin bias is a problem. It is speculation as to what the impact of the problem may be, that is true.
Which matters? Sex organ size? Sexual practices? Inter-group differences?
You’re confusing issues here. Macro-level populations is pretty clear, and the race as bad biology is clear. Sexual organ size variation as a general matter is perhaps not well studied --sex is not (comparatively well studied because of our hangups-- but on the other hand its pretty meaningless, like finger size variation. As race-based variation of genital size requires there to be race-based genetic differces, you get yourself into a bit of a trap.
True. Also, if one wishes to declare that possible differences cannot exist - same story.
No, it’s not the same thing. Get it fucking straight. There’s little excuse not to.
One can exclude certain things, becuase the genetic data do not allow for it. Racial phyiscal differences being one of them. The data are not clear on smaller groupings. That is where one can not make clear statements. You will not I am very careful on this and quite clear above. There are things which have been excluded, others which have not.
Well, I wish that somebody had posted links, etc. before the thread had been closed. Before I started this thread, I ran searches for obvious words – like “penis” and “race” and didn’t find anything.
And based on Cecil’s collumn that IzzyR was good enough to post, I don’t think the question can be or should be dismissed out of hand.