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.
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 am quite sure this is accepted by all sides here.
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.
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 !!!
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”.
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.
Just to elaborate on Dr. Lao’s post (for my fellow non-biologists), my dictionary defines “monophyletic” as “developed from a single ancestral type”.
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. )
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.
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.
.
)