[ SECRET POST #2336 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2336 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11. [posted twice]


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 081 secrets from Secret Submission Post #334.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's obviously peer-reviewed, secret says it's in the Asian Journal of Andrology, do you know what peer-reviewed means

Idc about cumberbums dick size but I am a scientist and nothing is more irritating than people saying "lol bullshit" about a study because they find the conclusions 1. hard to believe or 2. offensive somehow. That attitude is why we have creationists and climate change denial and a million other idiocies

It took 2 seconds to find this paper if anyone doubts its existence http://www.nature.com/aja/journal/v13/n5/full/aja201175a.html

[(Anonymous)]

People aren't calling it a fake study they are calling the correlation between fingers and penis size bullshit. Just because it's a published study doesn't mean it's correct. Vaccines contributing to autism was a published study.

[elephantinegrace]

It's a published study from an accredited source of medical literature. The vaccines = autism study was published by a man who had no degree in medicine (or any science at all) whatsoever.

[(Anonymous)]

DA: Wrong Andrew Wakefield was a surgeon and GP, he just grossly incompetent and wrong, had conflicts of interested and exaggerated/falsified results which were wrongly obtained and not correctly. Also it was published in the Lancet which is also an accreditation journal.

[(Anonymous)]

They are scientists too. Should we be impressed?

[elephantinegrace]

Do they have actual degrees from respected universities, though? I can print out a fake diploma from the University of Bumfucknowhere; that doesn't mean I'm an actual scientist.

[(Anonymous)]

You are a scientist eh? Well, nothing is more irritating than people who take a single correlation, that under other statistical tests wouldn't even be significant, go 'ooh how dare you question the conclusion of this study'.

[(Anonymous)]

But no one is saying that! I would certainly expect people to criticize the study with like, you know, legitimate criticism though??

[(Anonymous)]

But I think most people are calling bullshit on the notion that the length of ring finger will likely predict penis length. They did find a correlation in the study...but it doesn't substantiate the hypothesis in any meaningful way. But, yeah, I do see where you're coming from. The study is definitely not pseudoscience.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course just because the study isn't psuedoscience doesn't mean it's not bullshit

[(Anonymous)]

DA: Agreed. Correlation does not equal causation, hence why the theory is just a theory. Theories aren't Bullshit except when hen they cite themselves as fact that's when they become BS. The paper is just a theory with correlation, it's not a scientific fact, but it's still scientific theory showing correlations/trends.

I'm a Scientist who has found enough papers that hide, exaggerate and manipulate stats . As they say there are three types of lies, the last being damned stats. And some which had been completely wrong all together.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a studying psychologist and nothing irritates me more than people accepting peer-reviewed studies as absolute fact. One of the major exercises they kept making us do was to find studies in accredited journals like that and pick it the fuck apart as to what they might be missing. I've learned to question everything and carefully read the parameters of the study. And if I think a study is fucking bullshit, I'm calling it fucking bullshit.

If you're that determined to defend a dick-gazing study, I challenge you to find other studies that back this one study up. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my god, + a billion to this. Srsly.

[(Anonymous)]

A+ response.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank. And it's not like studies that are accepted into peer-reviewed and even well-recognised journals are never later discredited.

Also, some journals have such a low bar there's no such thing as "it was published in a peer-reviewed journal so it much be true". Please.

[(Anonymous)]

I am scientist who specialises in logic, and nothing is more irritating to me than confirmation bias.

[(Anonymous)]

*a

[(Anonymous)]

The study linked:

144 men, all Korean, so it's hardly a diverse or random sample. Then, look at table 3, and look at those r values. The ring finger vs index finger measurements that OP is talking about are in the "digit ratio" column. R values come between 1 and -1, and those values are about -0.2 for both flaccid and stretched penis length. That's hardly a significant correlation by any statistics standard, regardless of what conclusions the scientists draw at the end. All the p value says is they're reasonably certain that their correlation coefficient is right.

Also, quoted directly from the study itself:

"Among these three variables (height, BMI and digit ratio), only height was a significant predictive factor for flaccid penile length (r=0.172, P=0.038) in the multivariate analysis using a linear regression model."

Considering OP is seeing flaccid penises here, the study says exactly the opposite of what they think it does; height matters more.

[(Anonymous)]

You're hilariously repetitive and overinvested. LOL

[(Anonymous)]

I am neither, and the post you replied to (and the same post made in the main thread) are the only comments I've made on the issue. :) But I seriously doubted anyone was actually reading it, so voila--there's the summary. Have a good time arguing about things that weren't actually said.

[(Anonymous)]

You're weirdly offended about someone posting the results of the study which probably didn't take them a whole lot of time to do.