Comments on: NCBI ROFL: When it comes to penis length and economic growth, size does matter.

By: Jay Brown

Jay Brown — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:32:29 +0000

Is another one of those “scientific study” in which the conclusion was decided upon and then the study done to support that conclusion.
What did they do, go around asking the size of one’s penis and then correlation that to GDP.
This is another one of those survey designed to show the superiority of Europeans vs Africans, and is sheer nonsense as far as I am concerned.

By: Cheree Byrne

Cheree Byrne — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:19:20 +0000

It’s logical, economic growth will affect the younger generations, more food and health advances will be aveilable, thus the kids will be stronger, taller with bigger male organs. Other factor such as migration has to be associated with male orgam growth, the developing country can hire bigger stronger workers from outside and some of them would move there looking for a better life.

By: Gdad

Gdad — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:18:10 +0000

There is an obvious latent variable of ethnicity that underlies both findings. Also: diet, social norms, and 100 other things.

By: kayla

kayla — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:08:48 +0000

Maybe I’m misreading it, but isn’t the paper saying that large penis size correlates with POOR economic development, and vice versa? If so, then if stereotypes hold true about male Africans, one should expect economic growth to be poor.

By: ColinC

ColinC — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:40:22 +0000

I can explain the causation! Larger penile length means less time spent making positive economic activity and more time… doing other things.

By: mishawelsh

mishawelsh — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:10:12 +0000

It is amazing how many things correlate and how few are actually causal.

Reminds me of a paper that found eating hot dogs correlated to an increase in a form of leukemia. But it found that eating something like 8-12 a week did, 13-18 didn’t, 19-24 did. That pretty much says the finding is meaningless but there is a correlation.

By: Elatia Harris

Elatia Harris — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:11:09 +0000

I makes sense that the USA would be essentially average, considering it has far less of a common genetic background than other nations that might cause it to skew towards either end of the spectrum. Other nations represented here are more “closed” systems that would allow for such a phenomenon to occur over hundreds or even thousands of years. The USA, on the other hand, is a mixture of many countries.