Well, Biggirl, I try to be a sweetie because I’m downright scary when I lose my temper. I’m STILL VERY MUCH OFFENDED by IzzyR’s lack of respect towards you and me, and I’m waiting to hear what he has to say for himself, and I’d be ecstatic if he’d be man enough to apologize for being so inconsiderate so that we can put this behind us. You know what I’m sayin’?
If it’s any consolation, Izzy’s ignoring me, too.
But then, he’s ignored me before. Hell, I’ve been ignored by some of the best. I was ignored by the Pope once.
celestina
I certainly agree that we weren’t getting anywhere - I considered the problem to be on your end, you evidently see it on mine. At any rate it did not look like anything productive was being accomplished. My approach in such circumstances is generally to recognize the futility and terminate that end of the discussion - perhaps you have another approach.
I don’t mind letting bygones be bygones, if that is your request. But I don’t have anything to apologize for. Be offended or not, your call.
This thread has been hijacked and dragged in more directions than any I’ve ever seen, anyone have a better one?
b.
Apart from the “hanged versus hung” hijack, this thread has done what all threads with the word “race” in the OP or the title have done – entered a grudge match between those who fail to see any relevance of the traditional races and those who cling to the concept.
Izzy:
I am a scientist, all of my perceived hedging was because without a good study I would be dishonest to say that I can state something absolutely.
But the beauty of science comes from its predictive value. Knowing what I know about development, about genetics, about anthropology, and about medicine and biometrics, I can propose a hypothesis that race plays no role in genital size. This hypothesis is far more supported than its converse – that race does play a role. While there is no direct evidence against race and genital size, there is no direct evidence for it either. Therefore, we default to the predictions that we make knowing what we know about genetics and anthropology and development and medicine. And those point us directly to the no correlation side.
To be a good scientist, one formulates an educated hypothesis based on what we know and perfoms experiments to prove that. One does not invoke things outside of the system and invent new rules just because of social constructs.
My utilization of a person’s ethnicity to narrow a diagnosis in no way contradicts anything tomndebb has ever said. There are no decisions based exclusively on race, but one keeps things in mind, just as one would keep cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Gaucher Disease, Bloom Syndrome, and BRCA syndromes in mind when examining an Ashkenazi Jew. It is true that there is more SCD in self-reported African Americans, and that fact is never ignored in medicine. It is just a fact that has more basis in anthropology than in genetics.
Well, it seems that pretty much everyone agrees with my original point – that a question about race and genital size should not be dismissed as “absurd.”
I suppose that the discussion is finished, but you raised an interesting point that I’d like to pursue.
It seems to me that you make a pretty strong argument - that with respect to characteristics that have been measured, there are no significant differences. Therefore, the expectation is that there are no significant differences with respect to other characteristics.
But . . . how sure are you about your premise?
I ran a google search on “race” and “spirometry” and found the following link:
http://www.acoem.org/paprguid/guides/sppaper/results.htm
Please take a look at the section on “Race Adjustment” and tell me what you think.
That’s fine. But one also refrains from declaring absolute conclusions when these are not known. As you say:
I therefore expect that in the future you will refrain from doing so, and we will have no cause for disagreement.
Look back. My statement was:
I can’t see what difference there is between my statements and yours. And yet, tomndebb disagreed with me, saying:
(Your next post in this thread was to add stuff to “Tom’s fine post”.) Tom later added:
Again, I don’t see the slightest difference between my statements and yours on the subject, and think you are being inconsistent by agreeing with tomndebb’s disagreement with me, while saying the same things yourself. (I’d appreciate some comment from Tom as well - what have I said different than Edwino, and do you disagree with him as well?)
Had an evening free. Decided to see what my old friends on the SDMB were up to. Found a lively discussion on penis size. Hm. Better put my 2 cents in before they start charging for the privilege. 
Q1. Is there an observational basis for the belief that American whites have shorter shlongs than African Americans?
A: Judging from Cecil’s presentation of the Kinsey report, I’d say No. “White males had an average flaccid penis length of 4.0 inches, whereas the average black male’s detumescent member measured 4.3 inches. But when erect, the average white penis was 6.2 inches long, whereas the average black’s was 6.3 inches–still longer, but not by much.”
I assert that a 7 and 1/2 percent flaccid size difference is not noticeable in practice. Never mind a 2% erect size difference.
Q: Is there a statistically significant difference between the penis size of Kinsey’s sample of self-identified American blacks (n1=59) and his rather larger sample of self-identified American whites (n2=2500)?
Yes for flaccid (making certain assumptions), no for erect. Rough calculations follow.
From http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRaverages.html :
Paul L. Jamison and Paul H. Gebhard (1988) rework the original Kinsey data and report the following:
… Mean…Standard Deviation
Flaccid penis length (in.)… 3.89… .73
Erect penis length (in.)…6.21… 0.77
Ok, assume African American and white American males have penises with equal variances. Big assumption (possibly untrue), but I’m not inclined to do the research/analysis necessary to go beyond it. (I did a brief google search though).
Mean Flaccid Penis B/W Difference = .3
Sampling Variance of FPB/WD = ((.73)^2) / 2500 + ((.73)^2) / 59
St Err (Sq root of above) = .09667
2*.09667=.19334 < .3. Statistically significant (though practically unnoticeable) difference.
Mean Erect Penis B/W Differential = .1
Sampling Variance of EPB/WD = ((.77)^2) / 2500 + ((.77)^2) / 59
St Err (Sq root of above) = .1016
1.96*.1016= .199 > .1 Not statistically significant at 5% level of confidence. (Nor at the 20% level of confidence for that matter).
I hope I set up the problem correctly (at least roughly).
Disclaimers about self-selection problems and the general non-randomness of Kinsey’s sample (as well as internet-based samples, see Penis size or http://www.sizesurvey.com/result.html ) apply.
I hope this clarifies matters. Interested parties are directed to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/originalsite/bib-penis.html .
Warning: Some of the links above contain images of male genitalia.
(I’ll try to notify the mods; this issue occurred to me only immediately after I hit “send”.)
Ummm…I know that I’m a freak! Sorry!!! Sheesh. I can’t believe you guys had to start a pit thread about me! I know that my ‘package’ is imposing…but couldn’t we all just get along?
Look, I know it’s impressive. How do you think I felt when I was born with this monstrosity? How do you think I’ve gotten by when my Mother didn’t make it? I have to live with this Titan!
GodDamn! That’s all I hear day in and day out…“Please Mr. Kaotic could you hang that behind the door?” and “Excuse me sir, where are the keys for your dick?.” I’m not telling you this so you can worship me…I’m just letting you know that having this great-big dick isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Someday it’ll be your turn.
Let’s let peace have a chance. Please?
I’ve checked the links, and while they are graphic, they do contain a lot of information, so I’m letting them stay.
Lynn
for the Straight Dope
Hey andros, thanks for the heads up on how IzzyR’s an equal opportunity ignorer. 
flowbark, great websites. VERY educational. I really had no idea folks outside of the pornography industry were so interested in measuring dicks. [giggle]
IzzyR said:
"celestina
I certainly agree that we weren’t getting anywhere - I considered the problem to be on your end, you evidently see it on mine. At any rate it did not look like anything productive was being accomplished. My approach in such circumstances is generally to recognize the futility and terminate that end of the discussion - perhaps you have another approach.
I don’t mind letting bygones be bygones, if that is your request. But I don’t have anything to apologize for. Be offended or not, your call."
IzzyR, of course I want to let bygones be bygones–after I post the following:
You ask me if I’d approach things differently than you, and I’d say YES. That’s what I’ve been doing in trying to deal with you in this thread. Each time I’ve posted here–or anywhere else for that matter–my primary concern has been making sure that the arguments/ideas I’ve made are clear. You see I RESPECT folks enough to try to do that. If someone asks me to clarify my position, then I will do my level best to do so, or I will admit that I can’t and leave it at that. If I feel like after trying to COMMUNICATE with folks, that we aren’t communicating, then and only then will I leave that person alone or leave the discussion altogether, but it takes a lot to get me to that point, as evidenced by this last effort to communicate with you now.
In this thread, SEVERAL times SEVERAL folks asked you to clarify your position. While you attempted to do so for tomndebb and edwino, neither Biggirl nor I saw you afford us similar respect in engaging our concern about the lack of clarity in your position. However, Biggirl and I kept trying to communicate with you, and I, in trying to puzzle out your position, attempted to address the larger issue of race that does have bearing on the absurd notion of race as a determiner for genital size. Folks are so quick to talk about race as some valid scientific concept, and historically race HAS BEEN USED ERRONEOUSLY in pseudo-scientific endeavors; however, folks don’t seem to have a clue about how the concept of race came to be, and HOW IT CAN CLOUD the thinking of folks who can otherwise be logical. Instead of engaging Biggirl and me, you dismissed us. That is what I take issue with, and that is what I am offended by. You disrespected genuine attempts to communicate with you and blew Biggirl and me off as being too emotional. Well, yes, folks tend to get emotional when they’re being disrespected. I have seen this phenomena of folks dismissing me as being too emotional or not intelligent enough happen time and time again with folks who think they know what they’re talking about and can’t be bothered to listen to or communicate well with others. In this thread when I asked you for clarification, you said that we were talking about different things. You did NOT attempt to engage what I’d written to even see if it has any bearing on whatever it was you were trying to argue. I still think you need to educate yourself on the history of race formation to understand why your push to try to have scientists look at genital size along racial lines is problematic. But I seriously doubt you will. [shrug]
You’ve expressed that you thought you and I weren’t getting anywhere so you just ignored me. You’ve yet to address Biggirl’s concerns. You think that you have not been offensive to others when they’ve said that you have been. Fine. I knew it was a long shot expecting you to look beyond the narrow confines of your world where race has some scientific validity. I knew it was more than I could expect for you to apologize for being offensive when folks have told you that you were. Hey, we’re in the Pit after all. I’m still offended by your disrespectful actions towards Biggirl and me, but life’s short and you’re just not worth it to get all bent out of shape over some petty foolishness.
The only reason I’m responding to what you wrote is in the hopes that you will learn something from your actions in this thread. Like other folks who’re addicted to this goddamn board, I’m trying to fight ignorance. It is my sincere hope that whether or not you think what I posted has any direct bearing on your penis and/or your Sickle Cell Anemia inquiry that you will take the time to educate yourself on the history of race formation and race relations. The sources I listed are a good place to start. If you and other folks reading this thread will do that, then my time in this thread will not have been wasted. But I have serious doubts that you will RISE to that challenge. It’s your call.
Have a nice life.
That was a cool peice of analysis flowbark. It simply amazes me what Dopers will do with a little bit of free time and a whole lot of curiosity. Now get working on those clitoris figures!
There is no doubt people are interested in comparing the races and I don’t think doing so would cause so much heat and dissention if this information was given the credence it was worth-- which would be nothing beyond pure entertainment value.
If we really wanted to, we could find correlation for just about anything. We could do a study to see if more mass murderers clipped their left or right toenails first. If after vigorous analysis it was found that the left toenail murderers outnumbered the right toenail clippers, this “truth” would be given about as much credence as, well, as nothing really.
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.
I’m more than a little reluctant to mention to the Queen of Google a possible aid in her search for comparative clitoral analysis but this is always useful:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=google&hl=en
Has features like ‘Safe Search’ which filters out much of the porn, offers the option of only searching specified suffix’s (like .edu) and also offers a way to search just (some) Universities.
- Just thought it was worth mentioning.
Okay, one more thing. Nowadays Google offers a Directory option (see the tab’s under the logo on the Home page) that accesses the ODP (considerably larger than the Yahoo database and less commerce inclined)). IMHO, for subjects like this, a directory is better than a search engine because the categorization of links excludes porn from the relevant categories.
- okay, now I’m going to slink away quietly…
I would tend to disagree with this (the 7.5%). I would also suggest that it is odd to assume that the “observational basis” is wrong but coincidently happened to come up with a correct assumption. (I would also note that for all the discussion of significance level as being a question of whether the difference is .3 or less, the likelihood of the difference being larger than .3 is about the same).
I would also think the focus should be on flaccid size, as this is presumably the basis of the widespread belief - the “locker room observations”.
This is interesting, and seems to contradict the assertions of numerous posters to this thread.
But I wonder if you could clarify one the difference between the 4.0 length given by Kinsey and the 3.89 used by J & G, if they were indeed using the same data.
If one were to assume the possibility of different variances it would be itself a contradiction of the assertion by the abovereferenced posters that the two populations are identical in regards to this issue. Which would, in turn, remove the impetus to dismiss the possibility of size differences as well. Were you possibly referring to differences in the sampling variance of the two groups measured by Kinsey?
Let me restate. 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.
Ok, but there are also observations made by sex partners. Gals: Has Cosmopolitan ever written about this?
It sort of contradicts the assertions. Again, I maintain the data says, “no appreciable difference”. Glad you mentioned confidence intervals: using my rough methodology, the Kinsey White American sample had flacid shlongs that were .3 inches smaller than his African American sample +/- .2 inches. So, ignoring the severe sampling problems in Kinsey’s survey, white cocks could be as much as one half inch shorter than their African American counterparts.
Again, nothing to write home about. (Certainly not when compared to the massive size of Kaotic Newtral).
J & G reportedly re-worked the Kinsey data. That was the point of their paper, judging from the brief blurb in the website that I linked to. If this seems odd, recall that the original surveys were conducted in 1948 and 1953, before the advent of high-speed computing, never mind PCs.
I wasn’t dismissing the possibility of size differences. (Though other posters seemed to.) I’m saying that there’s no statistical evidence for appreciable size differences, of the sort that would support the observed folklore.
I admit that before I did the exercise, I didn’t think I would find a statistically signf. relationship. But, hey, that’s science. 
I don’t rule out the possibility that one sociological grouping may have a different variance for certain bodily measurements. But I’m not a biologist. (Tom, edwino et al.: Isn’t there a concept known as genetic drift? If a characteristic is evolutionarily neutral, might one see a wider variance for that characteristic? Again, speaking as an amateur.)
I also don’t rule out the possibility that the folklore is hokkum. Indeed, in my experience ( www.snopes.com ), much of folklore is.
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.
[[Apart from the “hanged versus hung” hijack, this thread has done what all threads with the word “race” in the OP or the title have done – entered a grudge match between those who fail to see any relevance of the traditional races and those who cling to the concept.]]
And I knew it was going there - yet again - which is ONE of the reasons I closed it in GQ. Oh, and btw, the OP was not about penis size as most of the recent posters seem to think. It was about clitoris size.
Unlike some of you more patient folks, I am tired of rehashing the race arguments here. I do appreciate the education Tom and Collounsbury and others have provided here for lo, these many years. Obviously there is no scientific basis for uniquely defining different human “races.” 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). That works for now, until we’re lucky enough to have more kids whosancestorscamefromwestorcentralAfrica playing soccer around here.
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.
Ok, before everyone and their mother rapes me up the ass with large spiked dildos for my comment:
I’M not in favor of using any sort of characteristic about an indivual (except for how much you are annoying me) to make any sort of determination about them (unless you’re annoying me)