31–40 of 59 posts
No mention of the one size every man is interested in most.
It's interesting to note that we humans evolved vastly bigger penises than the other monkeys (silverback gorillas are much larger than men but sport 1.25-inchers) due to women having much more choice / social capital than female gorillas.
The ears, especially their protrusion as measured, have little or no relationship to bone structure. The other measurements with low correlation to bone structure also have low correlation across the collection of measurements.
Ear protrusion probably has some relationship to other developmental signatures, just not limb length etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do somehow because of my inherent interest in understanding the world. However, this got me intro communication issues with my former boss. Apparently, this person was not interested in what words (or combinations of words) actually mean but rather simply just how they're used frequently. Every new combination of words was utterly confusing to this person. As a conclusion, I try to figure out how people process lan…
If you're interested in that sort of thing, on mental model that makes sense is people keep a little blob of context in their head, and use the words coming in to update the blob. Then at the end of the sentence they guess what you meant and respond to that, blind to what you was actually said as the tape recorder hears it. Which would be a very sensible way of working for people who don't have a lot of short term me…
Not having reviewed the full list of measurements, everything other than ear protrusion mentioned seems to involve bone structure. The ears, especially their protrusion as measured, have little or no relationship to bone structure. The other measurements with low correlation to bone structure also have low correlation across the collection of measurements. Ear protrusion probably has some relationship to other develo…
Perhaps this report settles once and for all, what proportion of normally more visible measurements are true correlates with that measurement.
No mention of the one size every man is interested in most.
No mention of the one size every man is interested in most.
Strange that an article by someone interested in Bayesian statistics (according to the website banner) would not consider measurement error here. It seems likely to me that ear measurements are harder to make accurately than measurements of larger body parts, which would drive down the correlations. Furthermore, I suspect that measurement error is inversely proportional to the size of the part being measured. If so,…
Strange that an article by someone interested in Bayesian statistics (according to the website banner) would not consider measurement error here. It seems likely to me that ear measurements are harder to make accurately than measurements of larger body parts, which would drive down the correlations. Furthermore, I suspect that measurement error is inversely proportional to the size of the part being measured. If so,…
How would you consider that? The article states that all the calculations were based on the ANSUR-II dataset. If the values in that dataset were wrong, of course the results of the calculations may not be correct.
As GP hints at, since you don't measure an arm the same way you measure an ear, it's reasonable to expect the errors to have different characteristics.
A colleague once pronounced correlation "co-relation" and it made more sense so now I say it that way sometimes. Anyone else do that?