[ 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)]

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.