hand size and penis size..any correlatio

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
hand size and penis size..any correlatio
57
Mon, 01-16-2006 - 11:57pm
Is it true that the size of a man's and can determine the size of his penis?
Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:33am

Correlations could be drawn between almost anything, if you look hard enough though. I tend to trust my own first hand experience, both mine and those of people I know personally. And in this case, the outcome of this survey really means nothing anyway.

A survey can be manipulated to reflect any outcome you choose simply by posing a question a certain way. And I know because I used to do market research.

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:41am

IF I found hand-penis size to be related in my own experience, I wouldn't hesitate to say so. As I said, why wouldn't I?

In my own experience though, that hasn't been the case. One's expectation would be that tall guys with huge hands and feet would nearly always have large penises as well. But I know that that hasn't been true, in my experience. They were generally on the average size.

When I was a teen, in the 70's, I was present at many skinny dipping parties, and while I haven't slept with a lot of men, I have seen my share of penises and there didn't seem to be any pattern to the sizing. Short or tall, big hands or not, it was a toss up once the shorts came off.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:42am

kat,

The poll at my foum simply had the guy tell his height and then his penis length. That's it. No posing of questions a certain way. It's a stright forward poll. Come on now, at least admit you wouldn't change your mind unless a Supreme Entity came down and pointed it out. I'm certain of that.

Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:48am
You forget the tendency to skew numbers though. LOL! People typically add an inch or so to their height and we know men add to their penis length, etc. Human nature.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:49am
kat, the correlation is more miss than hit. Also, it's a very gradual upward curve.

Here's why youi couldn't tell. In the poll at my forum, guys 5'9" and shorter far outnumbered the guys 6'2" and taller. So even though the poll shows the tall guys having 7" or longer almost 50% of time, and even though the poll shows the short guys having 7" or longer 25% of the time, the 5'8" and shorter guys still outnumbered the tall guys in how many 7" penises there are on the poll (because they so far outnumber the very tall guys). That would make it very difficult to spot a correlation if they were all in a room in front of you, especially if you weren't looking for it. It wouldn't seem there is one, yet the chart proves it's clearly there.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:56am
Wrong, I haven't forgotten about the tendancy to skew numbers. I've mentioned that in two posts in this thread already, and how that doesn't explain away the smooth correlation curve at sizesurvey and at my forum. Plus my forum would have a very minimal skewing, even if that did apply. You are being objective with the poll at my forum. It's not skewed; skewness doesn't explain away this; and questions weren't asked in leading ways. You are throwing up illogical stuff in response, stuff that really doesn't apply.
Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 11:58am
Until a survey is done IN PERSON so that measurements can be done by someone objective for accuracy and reliability, and where there are men of every height, you simply cannot draw a reliable correlation. Until that happens, a casual poll such as that really proves nothing.
Avatar for katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 12:00pm
Show me a survey that has been done by a trusted research or medical organization and I will believe it. But an informal, casual survey such as this, no. Too many ways to skew it to your liking.


Edited 2/23/2006 12:09 pm ET by katmandoo2001
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 12:14pm
Once again you don't explain away the correlation curve. So be it. The only personal measurements done have been small 30 person survey and small 100 person survey. Both times the news media headlined that that it was said no correlation exists. What the urologists said was not much of a correlation, but the news reporter in his or her bias threw out the 'not much' wording. Nor did the reporter ask for chart results, nor did the urologists offer any. Typical news reporting. And one urologists was clearly biased because he said not much correlation in feet just as there isn't in height, etc, even though he only tested feet on a few men and didn't even test the other parts. The fact that he said "not much" indicates he spotted something, but downplayed it because he was predisposed to believe it can't exist. And why stop it after just 30, or even 100? The only thing they were looking for was the average size. In the poll at my forum the average size was only about 1/4" difference longer for the tall guys. So the average is indeed close. So a closeness like that would might not show up well after just a few men. However, apparently it still showed up anyway, as he said not much. Where the correlation stands out more is how many 7"> guys are in each height group and how many guys are under 6" in each group. The short guys have more <6" penises and the tall guys have more 7"> penises. Combined it makes for a substantial correlation. Not that you believe any of this. Heh.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Thu, 02-23-2006 - 12:20pm

Kat wrote, "Show me a study done by a trusted research team and I'll believe it".

Un huh.