Correlation between cock size and intelligence?

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jan 1 2005, 09:32 PM
If you're smarter than average, you're not supposed to talk about it. If your dick's bigger than average, you're not supposed to talk about it. If you have natural musical ability, you're not supposed to admit it's better than someone else's, it goes on and on. Many who are gifted become severaly depressed because of this and their gifts become more of a curse than a source of pleasure, which I think is a shame. However, much about the workings of a person's mind is revealed through language, and I can certainly tell the IQ range of a person easily by the words they write. I've never been disappointed. Like it or not, we have a ton of highly intellectually gifted people on here, and whatever the reason, I sure enjoy the hell out of it. BTW, have you noticed the women who are on here? Our female posters are by and large in the same category as the male posters, so it does stand to reason that gifted people are "largely" attracted to each other.

[post=271320]Quoted post[/post]​

Woah, I disappear for one month and everyone gains 10IQ points!

Seriously though, Zora, it's a really good point, that I've selectively quoted. I tend to hids so many of my talents, I think most people I know think I "act out of character" when I say I can draw, or write well, or display any traits unusual for a "scientific megalomaniac", heck, I'd be surprised if anyone at uni thought I was hung. About genetics, one of my lecturers, who's written books on the subject actively believes that "genes" as we define them, do not exist, and I tend to agree with him, of course, 'functional protein encoding polynucleotide sequences' still exist of course.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by ORCABOMBER+Jan 4 2005, 09:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ORCABOMBER &#064; Jan 4 2005, 09:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jan 1 2005, 09:32 PM
If you&#39;re smarter than average, you&#39;re not supposed to talk about it. If your dick&#39;s bigger than average, you&#39;re not supposed to talk about it. If you have natural musical ability, you&#39;re not supposed to admit it&#39;s better than someone else&#39;s, it goes on and on. Many who are gifted become severaly depressed because of this and their gifts become more of a curse than a source of pleasure, which I think is a shame. However, much about the workings of a person&#39;s mind is revealed through language, and I can certainly tell the IQ range of a person easily by the words they write. I&#39;ve never been disappointed. Like it or not, we have a ton of highly intellectually gifted people on here, and whatever the reason, I sure enjoy the hell out of it. BTW, have you noticed the women who are on here? Our female posters are by and large in the same category as the male posters, so it does stand to reason that gifted people are "largely" attracted to each other. 

[post=271320]Quoted post[/post]​

Woah, I disappear for one month and everyone gains 10IQ points&#33;

Seriously though, Zora, it&#39;s a really good point, that I&#39;ve selectively quoted. I tend to hids so many of my talents, I think most people I know think I "act out of character" when I say I can draw, or write well, or display any traits unusual for a "scientific megalomaniac", heck, I&#39;d be surprised if anyone at uni thought I was hung. About genetics, one of my lecturers, who&#39;s written books on the subject actively believes that "genes" as we define them, do not exist, and I tend to agree with him, of course, &#39;functional protein encoding polynucleotide sequences&#39; still exist of course.

[post=271910]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to, basically because I can&#39;t say "polynucleotide sequences" :lol:

Orca, you hung genius, you make me smile&#33; *hands orca a certificate for the 10 IQ points he would have received had he been here when we handed them out*

I hate how people are made to feel embarrassed about the things that make us special and unique, shouldn&#39;t these things be celebrated? Healthy people don&#39;t wish to lord their gifts over others, but to not be able to mention them at all seems unfair and rude. I&#39;m glad this place is here.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

True, true. I suppose most people tend to think it&#39;s a sign of arrogance, but I tend to find it brilliant to be "gifted", if only because most of my peers are scientific, and it does become boring after a while when the only things people talk about are what happened during lectures.

Okay, at pubs and that, it&#39;s different, but then everyone&#39;s too drunk to notice.

And yep, I agree this place is rather "brill" isn&#39;t it?

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by ORCABOMBER@Jan 5 2005, 08:39 AM
True, true. I suppose most people tend to think it&#39;s a sign of arrogance, but I tend to find it brilliant to be "gifted", if only because most of my peers are scientific, and it does become boring after a while when the only things people talk about are what happened during lectures.

Okay, at pubs and that, it&#39;s different, but then everyone&#39;s too drunk to notice.

And yep, I agree this place is rather "brill" isn&#39;t it?

[post=272245]Quoted post[/post]​

*bats eyelashes* Even more so now that you&#39;re back&#33;

 

[Average_joe]

Originally, when I started reading this post, I intended to post that I thought some of the ideas mentioned already had been flawed, such as using LPSG as any sort of indicator that those who are well endowed might tend to be more intelligent (please don&#39;t take that the wrong way, I do not wish to question anyone&#39;s actual intelligence). I intended to throw forward the idea that using a group like this as an example is an incredibly bad way to conduct a study, even an informal one, because the results are going to be unfairly stacked in favor of the desired outcomes. Some other ideas were going to be mentioned, but they were either already said or I believe they are no longer relevent to the discussion.

What I&#39;m going to say next might be a little harsh and upsetting to some people.

I was wondering how much the idea of the "well-endowed more likely to be highly intelligent" is based upon the desires of those who want to elevate the status of those whom they desire, or those who possess such endowments. It&#39;s like wanting to think that your sports team is the best, or your city, or your child. You want to have more reasons to like and want a certain thing. I&#39;m sure of average or small endowments would viciously not want this to be true, because it takes away some of their glory (I know I don&#39;t want that), who&#39;s to say that some might want to add just a little glory to another group?
This is one of my first posts on the group, even though I&#39;ve been lurking for about a year now. I hope I didn&#39;t burn any bridges by starting with a post like this.

 

[madame_zora]

Average Joe, no bridges burnt at all&#33; Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I am sure the things you&#39;ve mentioned are very valid points. As a matter of fact, I am sure they are one reason something like this will never be researched in a more scientific way (unless I do it some day). AS for me, it was just an observation that came to me one day as I was chatting with some of the friends I had made on here, so I started asking. Now, self-reporting is what it is- weak at best. So I had a few guys take emode&#39;s IQ test. I have taken it myself and it was very close to the one on my high school transcript. Several members were willing to take it and send me the results. No matter, I knew anyway because of who I chose. There are many factors that would make this an incredibly difficult thing to study scientifically, but the main one would be finding test subjects. No one is going to respond to a study like that if they know their IQ isn&#39;t very high to begin with. That was my primary problem once I posted this thread. I actually began sampling about a month before I posted this, just to see how people would feel about it. The main flaw here is that I only know the guys who post, which is less than 10% of the membership, so already there is a self-selected group. Amoung the posters are many who are in college, who are teachers, therapists of different kinds, researchers- a fairly intimidating bunch. Many who are not very profiecient in literary skills would probably decline to post here because of that intimidation. That could be a primary reason for the quality of intelligent posts here.

I am well aware of the nausea associated with even thinking something like this, it would seem incredibly unfair. Please remember, I never intented to infer that bigger guys were automatically more intelligent- we all know that would be preposterous. My ONLY question was if there was a higher amount (more than 2%) amoung guys in the "gifted range" in cock size and "gifted range" in IQ score. Any percentage higher than 2 would have made it a "yes", so even if it came to be that 5% of hung guys had genius IQs, that still would mean 95% would not. Just wanted to keep it in perspective.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

So, Zora, if you're still around, do you have a theory why the intelligence level on the site has dropped? Imposters?

 

[kenneth66684]

hi, thank youhttp://www.lpsg.com/91337-photo-or-video-verification-updated-2.html#post1557189

 

[Tactfulgal]

I haven't read all the responses, but my guess would be no there is no correlation. Many of the arguments for a correlation are based on the idea that penis size impacts mate choice. I do not think this is true to enough of an extent that would actually impact genetic lines. Quite simply, I think very few people have their partner choices influenced by penis size. Some women may consider it a bonus, but the number of women who consider a giant dick important enough to base their partner choice on, is too small to matter genetically. And, while there may be a few guys who have unusually abnormal size (on either end) who may lose a girl because of it, I'm thinking this is again too rare to have any significant impact.
Summary - very, very few people make choices about who to reproduce with based on penis size, so it's unlikely that there's any particular correlation or trend.

 

[RigidDreamer]

Quite simply, I think very few people have their partner choices influenced by penis size.

This has not always been true.

Among primates, humans have the largest penises, not only in proportion to their bodies, but also in absolute terms.

Take gorillas, for instance. Their penises are only 3cm. The substantial difference between human and gorilla penises is believed to be due to differences in mate selection. Human females exercise a lot of freedom in selecting their mates. Gorilla females have no such freedom. They're basically owned.

So when human females prefer a certain trait in their mates, as evolution progresses, that trait will predominate. In contrast, evolution doesn't care what traits gorilla females prefer.

This doesn't just apply to humans and gorillas. Other primate species with sexually free females, such as chimps and bonobos, also have males with larger penises.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean today's human females prefer larger penises. Perhaps we've found an equilibrium, and the current average size is the most desirable. This would be difficult to test, though: since we began clothing ourselves, it has become a lot harder for women to consider penis size in their mate selection. They may still prefer a certain kind of penis, but they're generally blind to this trait until after they've selected a mate.

None of this has anything to do with the alleged correlation between penis size and intelligence (which I highly doubt has any veracity). I just think it's noteworthy that, on an evolutionary timeline, female primates have tended to prefer larger penises.

Edit: Why the hell is this thread in the Women's Issues section? Perhaps the mods should move it to Sex With a Large Penis.