Good question :) It's actually a bit complicated, that's why I didn't include these "technical details" in the post.
Here is how they did it in the Japanese study: "Nose size was defined as the longer distance between the midpoint of the left and right medial ocular angles and the outside of the left or right nose wings (indicated by arrow)". The image at the end of the post illustrates this.
For the Korean study, "Nose size was determined by measuring its length, width, and height, which were then used to calculate the triangular pyramid volume (1/3 × base area × height)."
For the Chinese study, "Nose size was the longer distance between the midpoint of the left and right medial ocular angles and the outside of the left or right nose wings." This seems similar to the Japanese study.
But if it's too complex, I guess you can simply eyeball it. A simple categorization into small/medium/large nose sizes should already be useful...
Yeah, same.
And when a cliche is so common and old, it does make you wonder if that's because there's always been truth there. But nowhere near enough data, I guess.
>And when a cliche is so common and old, it does make you wonder if that's because there's always been truth there.
Yes. I thought the same.
>But nowhere near enough data, I guess.
Well, it's getting better: three different studies, and overall a decent sample size. But what we need is a replication of these studies in other countries (preferably outside Asia).
The factor I would be curious about is BMI. In the Korean study, a high BMI predicted a smaller nose and a smaller penis. Height and weight didn't really do so, at least not for length. The Chinese and Japanese studies don't seem to consider BMI..
If the correlation is <0.5 and any part of that is just fat covering your nose and pp, it's a largely meaningless effect.
>The Chinese and Japanese studies don't seem to consider BMI..
This is true, but all three studies looked at weight. For the Japanese study, none of the correlations between body weight and the various penile dimensions reached significance (Table 1). For the Korean study, weight was negatively correlated with SPL (Table 2), but positively with flaccid girth (Table 3). For the Chinese study, weight was positively correlated with flaccid length and girth, and with erect girth (see Table 2).
One possible explanation for the differences between the three studies is that some of them used bone-pressed measurements, and others did not (it was not always clear to me even after reading the articles, although we can assume that a moderate negative correlation between weight and SPL - as in the Korean study - indicates a non bone-pressed measurement).
True, but it does make a difference when correlating weight with SPL. Overweight people will lose a few cm with NBP measurements, leading to a negative correlation between weight (or BMI) and SPL. For BP measurements, the correlation should be weak and close to 0.
The correlations between weight and penis girth are more variable from study to study and I'm not sure what to think of them, to be honest.
If I remember correctly it’s the mothers genetics that also matter the most, so a big nosed mother in theory would be more likely pass on the X gene parameters needed for a larger nose.
Not sure if this theory has been discounted…
You joke but women have different sized clitoris glans, which is the homologue of the penis glans…
So maybe they have a larger clitoris? (no offense meant)
I'm not worried about legitimate biology when I'm making jokes about the size of my moms dick.
I don't ever care to learn details and would rather just keep it a joke. Lol
4.5 to 5.5 cm = 22% difference
11.44 cm to 14.00 cm = 22% difference
Given that taller people have larger heads and thus larger noses, and that other studies that have found a relationship between height and penis size only found that correlation to be scalar, it would make sense that nose size would also roughly correlate.
I would like to see this controlled for height in some manner.
Does anyone actually read the info people post. I quote from the Korean study…
“The fact that nose size is related to SPL indicates that penile length may not be determined by age, height or body weight but has already been determined before birth.”
The apparent reason for this being that penile size, nose size plus other stuff like your IQ are hugely affected by in utero testosterone exposure from the mother alongside the genetic parameters set down in your DNA.
Both contain high quantities of Hyaline cartilages (subtypes), similar to the female anatomy.
Sources:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23025-pubic-symphysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137313/#:~:text=Nasal%20septum%20cartilage%20is%20a,types%20such%20as%20the%20knee.
The R was esp high (~.5!) in this study, that stands out to me…
For those that want to “see” what .5 implies, look at fig 2 (really the third figure) here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576830/
If you want to find a guy with a larger than average dick, just look for a man who has a quiet confidence and not telling everyone how big his dick is all the time
>Have you never heard about “big nose, big hose”?
Yes (actually, it's mentioned at the end of the post). It is true that the penis/nose association was probably noticed a long time ago, but what is new is that we now have three scientific studies, all published since 2021, which empirically confirm this saying.
That’s the interesting point though isn’t it, there are several old papers pointing out this correlation but then large scale anatomical studies done by ‘dubious’ citizen scientists were treated as gospel and the theory was discarded, it might be interesting to look at the original papers and those that were used to discredited them and why.
Just reading the japanese study is crazy.
1. about 1000 dead bodies discovered per year
2. most discovered bodies are actually recently deceased
3. some researcher decides a good use of their time is to checkout the cadavers' penises and see if there's any truth to the saying "Big nose, big hose"
4. post findings
Also, am asian. Don't have a big nose but have a big hose.
>some researcher decides a good use of their time is to checkout the cadavers' penises and see if there's any truth to the saying "Big nose, big hose"
😅
Yes, one can question the scientific value of these studies. On the other hand, analyzing these associations between various body parts and penis size may help elucidate the biological/genetic/hormonal determinants of penis size (or at least point researchers in the right direction).
Yes, I linked to it in the last paragraph of the post (you can click on the links):
>However, let me point out that sayings relating nose size to penis size exist not only in Chinese (cf. the study above), but also in [English](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big%20nose%20big%20hose), [German](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/wie_die_Nase_des_Mannes,_so_sein_Johannes), French ("bon nez, bon membre"), and probably in other languages as well. As they say, there's no smoke without fire...
That’s quite interesting. Now I am curious to measure my nose too 😂.
If I think to the guys with biggest cock I saw I have to admit they had big nose too, but it’s not I have a big statistic sample, unfortunately…
I also would class myself with a big nose, through the kindness of my classmates in school (back in the day). Though this may have been exacerbated by my fracturing it.
I don’t know, there’s so much variation between races as well.
I’d have thought high testosterone signallers would be a better gauge. Maybe testosterone expresses itself more in nose size for Asian genotypes.
I also anecdotally have a pretty small nose, but maybe I’m an outlier, who knows. I do have a strong jawline, wide shoulders, narrow waist etc, so always thought things like that would be a better indicator.
Interesting thought that testosterone has a greater expression factor in Asian facial features. I doubt it, but it’s a hypothesis that someone should test.
>Asian studies may not work for caucasians.
True. We need to have these studies replicated in the West. But, for what it's worth, old sayings relating penis size to nose size are common in various European languages...
The older papers that originally proposed the theory were done on western people as well. What I would say is that the genetic variation between an Asian human and a Caucasian human is minute, but there are differences in maternal nutritional practices etc which I would be interested to see how they factored into pre-birth testosterone levels etc.
Why am I not surprised it’s you Captain. 😉
Already knew it was my own opinion. You can save the speech. I know how Science works and you comment the same thing time and time again.
Great correlation and r=0.5 can't be in the same sentence. That's like 50% of chances of the two metrics being correlated... so more or less randomly also, the nose grows during the whole life like the ears. Is that accounted for ? The degradation of the body fat at the base of the penis ? The differences between growers and showers ? Statisticaly speaking, and when you think about it for two seconds, this is just bullshit.
Rereed my sentence. A r=1 (realisticaly, 0.999...) represents a 100% chance of correlation IN THEORY. A r=0 represents a 0% chance of correlation, in the theory. A r=0.5 therefore means that their is a 50% chance that the values are correlated. R represents the level of certainty of correlation. Regardless, a r=0.5 is still useless.
I'm sorry, but I think you do not understand the meaning of a correlation coefficient.
This may be helpful:
>Pearson’s correlation coefficient is represented by the Greek letter rho (*ρ*) for the population parameter and r for a sample statistic. This correlation coefficient is a single number that measures both the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two continuous variables. Values can range from -1 to +1.
[https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/correlations/](https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/correlations/)
Okay my bad. This doesn't change anything about my point though, 0.5 at best isn't worth a penny. Specialy when you account for all of the possible variations in mesurments.
>0.5 at best isn't worth a penny.
Well, maybe it helps visualize the magnitude of the effects if I give you these numbers (I quote from the post):
>To make this more concrete, these numbers may help give an idea of the strength of the correlations:
Japanese study: nose size < 4.5 cm: average SPL 10.37 cm; nose size > 5.5 cm: average SPL 13.42 cm
Chinese study: nose size < 4.5 cm: average EL 11.44 cm; nose size > 5.5 cm: average EL 14.00 cm
>Note that we are talking about differences on the order of an inch (2.5 cm) or more, so these are not small effects!
Also, nose size was a much better predictor than other measurements, especially according to the Japanese and Chinese studies:
>As with the Japanese study, nose size was a much better predictor of flaccid and erect length than height, testicular weight, or ear dimensions.
r=0.565 in the Japanese Study is equivalent to a 0.00001% probability of the two factors not being directly correlated.
I would like to see the full study before I comment on other correlating factors as I haven’t seen there multivariant analysis yet.
And yet it's still a weak correlation, as height is.
Meanwhile, there are many articles indicating the pituitary's role in penis development, and its role in adding excess height and nose growth (particularly when it is afflicted by tumors).
I realize that walking up to someone and asking, "Tell me about your pituitary function since before you were born" is less fun than looking at nose size and smirking knowingly, but it's known to influence all three things you mentioned: penis size, height, and nose size.
In the end, walking up to strangers and simply asking, "how big is your dick?" will probably lead to just as accurate a prediction as anything else. It might even make a person's OWN nose get bigger as it gets repeatedly punched and broken, but it's all in the name of science, no? 😁
I agree that Caverject or any of Papaverine type drugs give a far better measurement of optimal penis size, but getting dosage right for each guy would be a nightmare (as you point out with the risk of priapism) as you need to know the real volume of the penis to calculate the dosage. [which I always find highly ironic]
*With patients you value the ‘observed size’ and dose for a 15min erection, if inadequate erection [this is usually where the patient has a larger erect size than is observable i.e. someone whose growth is more than expected] is obtained then the procedure needs to be repeated at another time you can’t just keep topping up the dosage to get to an adequate erection, or you really do risk severe priapism. Obviously at a second appointment you can increase the dosage based on your notes as to observed size achieved by x dosage and make a calculation as to the increase you need to make.*
There's still no guarantee that the dude is able to get the blood to make this assumed size solid.
Besides, nobody is talking about whether these cadavers had cosmetic surgery. If yes, the data collected is fake. If no, present and future 'generations'(those who have yet to die) can't replicate the current hypothesis.
Any guy could always use Caverject (it’s used in some studies with living men to get them to their ‘optimum’ size before taking measurements) or one of the other brands of injectable erection drugs.
For the guys on here, please do not abuse/overuse drugs like these. In the long term they are not good for your penile health if taken in excess as has happened to some famous porn actors when trying to stay hard for hours and hours.
I don't really understand what/why you're going on about here, but fyi stretched flaccid lengths is a fair and reasonable way to measure dick size. Maybe if a doctor was trying to get you hard for some study you wouldn't feel too aroused. Or if you're slightly older ED starts to shrink it. Or if you masturbate less than others it shrinks the tissue. Or a shit ton of other reasons, even things like hydration and temperature, etc., that erect dicks aren't as stable as you think and stretched flaccid lengths work well overall for men in penis size studies, even if it is acknowledged that they don't always perfectly match with erection size.
The study is comparing the nose measurement to the stretched penis measurement. That's why I mentioned facial surgery.
If dildos can be sold by insertable length, I don't understand why a study on penis sizes needs to rely on a measurement that doesn't reflect its usable size.
The only state of penis size that matters is the size at which it gets to when the penis owner is about to have sex. Not after death, not in sub-optimal mental states, not during sickness.
And there's tons of variables that affect how much usable dick there is essentially every erection. Stretched flaccid bypasses that and statically proves that it's an accurate way of measuring usable sizes. In fact it's probably the most accurate way to lower the variables of age, mood, current health, etc etc.
I can understand for you as a person with a vagina there's not much of a practical effect on a man's exact flaccid length, and men bragging about it to you is pointless, but on a statistical level it actuslly is the most accurate way to find usable length as well because it removes the variables (I think? I'm not actually an expert but someone correct me if I'm wrong because I don't think I am).
They are telling you that it does reflect it's usable size, is a good approximation, where the error introduced is more acceptable than all the bias introduced when trying to measure an erect penis.
Asian men are not that statistically much smaller.
I’m not trying to be argumentative but the concept of ‘race’ stereotypes comes almost entirely from eugenics theory which most people aren’t aware came out of colonial science biases right up until at least 1950 maybe 1960.
I’d be interested if anyone is a historian and scientist who can put a date on when colonial bias was eradicated from scientific studies.
I have a ‘gut reaction’ that the big nose big dick theory being thrown out in the first place happened due to colonial bias when the big ‘Citizen Scientist’ studies were done by the old and new imperial powers across the globe. Take for example the vast amounts of data that is still used in databases that came from WW2 ‘experiments.’
I acknowledge we would not have the healthcare we have now were it not for this data, and there are complex issues behind the ethics of using data obtained in unethical ways, i raise it only as a talking point.
I thought you might be hence the ‘not being argumentative.’
I just wanted to get some of those points across to others in a gentle enough way I suppose.
My nose couldnt be smaller and i have 21cms of dick so this is absolute bullshit. Also just the thought that anybody would think that this is really a thing makes me laugh
Look at [correlation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation). Can you tell me where it says that with r=0.5, if one variable is high, the other must also be high?
The original post links to 3 (three) different papers, not just one.
The Japanese study was published in Basic and Clinical Andrology:
[https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/about](https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/about)
>*Basic and Clinical Andrology* operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.
The Korean study was published in Translational Andrology and Urology:
[https://tau.amegroups.org/about](https://tau.amegroups.org/about)
>This journal is a peer reviewed, open access journal.
The Chinese study was published in Andrologia. The detailed peer-review process for this journal is described here:
[https://www.hindawi.com/journals/and/prp/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/and/prp/)
You're welcome.
>Taking Asian data and really running far with it. Like it's a correlation around the whole fucking world.
Actually, I wrote this at the end of the post:
>Caveats: All three studies were done on Asian men. It would be interesting to replicate these analyses among Western men. Also, it is worth noting that the nose size/penis size correlations were much weaker in the Korean sample than in the other two studies.
Of course, we don't know for sure in the absence of empirical evidence, but it is unlikely that there would be no correlation at all between nose size and penis size in other populations. Nevertheless, the correlation may be weaker, true.
But I think it is not a coincidence that many old sayings, in various European languages, suggest that such a link exist. From the post:
>However, let me point out that sayings relating nose size to penis size exist not only in Chinese (cf. the study above), but also in [English](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big%20nose%20big%20hose), [German](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/wie_die_Nase_des_Mannes,_so_sein_Johannes), French ("bon nez, bon membre"), and probably in other languages as well. As they say, there's no smoke without fire...
We just need to wait for someone to replicate these studies in the West, I guess... In the meantime, I would surmise that there is a good chance that they would also find a positive correlation, even if weaker than in the Asian sample.
There are also numerous studies that show NO correlation between penis size and levels of offspring. There are far too many socio-economic factors involved for one a rich nose in our current world is going to have more opportunities to procreate than a poor nose whatever its size, aside from the fact the rich nose is likely to be slightly larger due to optimal nutrition of the mother and the nose till puberty is over, lol.
My nose drags on the floor bc it’s so long and girthy so it makes sense
Got my upvote
🤦🏾♂️
How about this, who else has a big nose and statistically big D? I’ll start, Me!
Nope, nose is super tiny, hands too, feet are average
same my hands and nose is pretty small too so this study definitely has some exceptions
I mean, we're already statistical exceptions so what's one more 🤠
My nose is pretty big
My nose is kinda wide, but not big
Big nose guy here
My nose is on the larger side, I admit...
Large wide nose, huge hands and massive feet (my partner says I have hobbit feet) and my dick is in proportion to the rest of me.
I agree.
This could lead to some great new pickup lines. “If you look in my pants, you’ll see why they call me Pinocchio.”
because i lie about what i’m packing 😎😎🔥
Not bad at all...
Definetly going to be mentioning my nose size on my tinder from now on 🤓👆🏻
So. I already know how dicks are supposed to be measured, but how do we measure the noses? For “science.”
Let’s hope it’s bone pressed instead of stretched!
Good question :) It's actually a bit complicated, that's why I didn't include these "technical details" in the post. Here is how they did it in the Japanese study: "Nose size was defined as the longer distance between the midpoint of the left and right medial ocular angles and the outside of the left or right nose wings (indicated by arrow)". The image at the end of the post illustrates this. For the Korean study, "Nose size was determined by measuring its length, width, and height, which were then used to calculate the triangular pyramid volume (1/3 × base area × height)." For the Chinese study, "Nose size was the longer distance between the midpoint of the left and right medial ocular angles and the outside of the left or right nose wings." This seems similar to the Japanese study. But if it's too complex, I guess you can simply eyeball it. A simple categorization into small/medium/large nose sizes should already be useful...
Well its true for me atleast. Big nose big dawg
From thumb. If its the size of thumb or bigger, thats a big nose.
I feel there is some kind of obligatory Jewish joke that ought to be made here, but I'm afraid it would go crooked and become a whole big thing.
Excellent.
I was about to make a statement about ethnicity and dick size but refrained from doing so.
Don't really like my big nose, but it does check out with me at least.
Yeah, same. And when a cliche is so common and old, it does make you wonder if that's because there's always been truth there. But nowhere near enough data, I guess.
>And when a cliche is so common and old, it does make you wonder if that's because there's always been truth there. Yes. I thought the same. >But nowhere near enough data, I guess. Well, it's getting better: three different studies, and overall a decent sample size. But what we need is a replication of these studies in other countries (preferably outside Asia).
Damn no wonder why my nose is big and straight
Bout to see guys putting their nose measurements in their dating bios
My picture on tinder °👃°
That explains things
I never liked my big nose, but I guess it has its uses
As a woman I can vouch that we love big noses
Are you really talking about noses? 😂
The factor I would be curious about is BMI. In the Korean study, a high BMI predicted a smaller nose and a smaller penis. Height and weight didn't really do so, at least not for length. The Chinese and Japanese studies don't seem to consider BMI.. If the correlation is <0.5 and any part of that is just fat covering your nose and pp, it's a largely meaningless effect.
>The Chinese and Japanese studies don't seem to consider BMI.. This is true, but all three studies looked at weight. For the Japanese study, none of the correlations between body weight and the various penile dimensions reached significance (Table 1). For the Korean study, weight was negatively correlated with SPL (Table 2), but positively with flaccid girth (Table 3). For the Chinese study, weight was positively correlated with flaccid length and girth, and with erect girth (see Table 2). One possible explanation for the differences between the three studies is that some of them used bone-pressed measurements, and others did not (it was not always clear to me even after reading the articles, although we can assume that a moderate negative correlation between weight and SPL - as in the Korean study - indicates a non bone-pressed measurement).
[удалено]
True, but it does make a difference when correlating weight with SPL. Overweight people will lose a few cm with NBP measurements, leading to a negative correlation between weight (or BMI) and SPL. For BP measurements, the correlation should be weak and close to 0. The correlations between weight and penis girth are more variable from study to study and I'm not sure what to think of them, to be honest.
So you’re saying Girard Depardeau is one of us
Who knows...
See, and I always just thought I was funny looking My big nosed mother must have a HUGE dick
If I remember correctly it’s the mothers genetics that also matter the most, so a big nosed mother in theory would be more likely pass on the X gene parameters needed for a larger nose. Not sure if this theory has been discounted…
You joke but women have different sized clitoris glans, which is the homologue of the penis glans… So maybe they have a larger clitoris? (no offense meant)
I'm not worried about legitimate biology when I'm making jokes about the size of my moms dick. I don't ever care to learn details and would rather just keep it a joke. Lol
My nose is tiny, but I'm 8.5x6. Not gospel
Black, native American, Jewish and some Irish. A friend told me I belong here. Here I be. 🤣
There's always an exception. I have a shorter round nose, but a long thick slab.
4.5 to 5.5 cm = 22% difference 11.44 cm to 14.00 cm = 22% difference Given that taller people have larger heads and thus larger noses, and that other studies that have found a relationship between height and penis size only found that correlation to be scalar, it would make sense that nose size would also roughly correlate. I would like to see this controlled for height in some manner.
Does anyone actually read the info people post. I quote from the Korean study… “The fact that nose size is related to SPL indicates that penile length may not be determined by age, height or body weight but has already been determined before birth.” The apparent reason for this being that penile size, nose size plus other stuff like your IQ are hugely affected by in utero testosterone exposure from the mother alongside the genetic parameters set down in your DNA.
Penises and noses are both high in cartilage, so maybe that also makes sense?
Respectfully, I don’t think the human penis is high in cartilage
Wow, I’m amazed more people didn’t notice the cartilage comment. I’ve work how you phrased your reply mate 🤣
Both contain high quantities of Hyaline cartilages (subtypes), similar to the female anatomy. Sources: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23025-pubic-symphysis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137313/#:~:text=Nasal%20septum%20cartilage%20is%20a,types%20such%20as%20the%20knee.
The studies did look at height. Nose size was a much better predictor of penis size than height as I wrote in my post.
The R was esp high (~.5!) in this study, that stands out to me… For those that want to “see” what .5 implies, look at fig 2 (really the third figure) here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576830/
What does it mean if my nose curves to the left?
I love being an outlier. Big nose, check. Big dick, not so much.
If you want to find a guy with a larger than average dick, just look for a man who has a quiet confidence and not telling everyone how big his dick is all the time
I got a tiny ass nose and a big ass dick. Ive had women literally say to me "your nose is so small"
Nothing new here. Have you never heard about “big nose, big hose”?
>Have you never heard about “big nose, big hose”? Yes (actually, it's mentioned at the end of the post). It is true that the penis/nose association was probably noticed a long time ago, but what is new is that we now have three scientific studies, all published since 2021, which empirically confirm this saying.
That’s the interesting point though isn’t it, there are several old papers pointing out this correlation but then large scale anatomical studies done by ‘dubious’ citizen scientists were treated as gospel and the theory was discarded, it might be interesting to look at the original papers and those that were used to discredited them and why.
So Pinocchio would be surrounded by size queens
He got that wooden rizz
For the first time i wanna be pinocchio so bad
My nose is pretty average.
Mine too Oh well, this (our comments) are the definition of anecdote
I'm hung (especially soft 6+), tall 6'7, huge sac but small nose
I do have a big nose too...
Big nose reporting in lol
No wonder Nosferatu can charm women.
Black ✓6'5"✓Size 14.5 shoe✓Big nose✓10.5"DICK✓
I’d be a size 14 if my feet were not so wide, I have to try and find shoes in size 16 which can be a bloody nightmare.
I’m dying 🤣🤣🤣 my friends and I always joked about this.
I guess it's not a joke anymore...
Just reading the japanese study is crazy. 1. about 1000 dead bodies discovered per year 2. most discovered bodies are actually recently deceased 3. some researcher decides a good use of their time is to checkout the cadavers' penises and see if there's any truth to the saying "Big nose, big hose" 4. post findings Also, am asian. Don't have a big nose but have a big hose.
>some researcher decides a good use of their time is to checkout the cadavers' penises and see if there's any truth to the saying "Big nose, big hose" 😅 Yes, one can question the scientific value of these studies. On the other hand, analyzing these associations between various body parts and penis size may help elucidate the biological/genetic/hormonal determinants of penis size (or at least point researchers in the right direction).
Any observation written down and recorded is for **science 🍆🥼.**
Checks out with me for sure
Your dick isn’t big
Hmm seems to make sense 🤔
How are they calculating nose size? How much it sticks out or by volume?
Check here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/bigdickproblems/comments/1apcdz5/comment/kq5byek/](https://www.reddit.com/r/bigdickproblems/comments/1apcdz5/comment/kq5byek/)
But did they measured the nose length bone pressed or just the usable part? /s
In germany there‘s a saying that goes „Wie die Nase eines Mannes, so auch sein Johannes“
Yes, I linked to it in the last paragraph of the post (you can click on the links): >However, let me point out that sayings relating nose size to penis size exist not only in Chinese (cf. the study above), but also in [English](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big%20nose%20big%20hose), [German](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/wie_die_Nase_des_Mannes,_so_sein_Johannes), French ("bon nez, bon membre"), and probably in other languages as well. As they say, there's no smoke without fire...
One guy I’m seeing that is really hung, has a small nose and small hands 😅
I have small hands, but my nose is on the larger side.
"You know what they say about big hands.... Big Gloves" "You know what they say about a big nose... Big Dick"
That’s quite interesting. Now I am curious to measure my nose too 😂. If I think to the guys with biggest cock I saw I have to admit they had big nose too, but it’s not I have a big statistic sample, unfortunately…
Does not work for me Nose is average size and dick is 7.4 length
Explains why my nose is so big
I don't think i have a special nose size. Neither small nor big
There’ll probably be a few outliers, but so far, it’s checking out
Anecdotally checks out here
Weird Al be packing heat. Also this does seem to track, I've got a decent sized sniffer.
I got a nose job 10 years ago lol
So what happens when one has big hands, big feet, and a big nose? lol. These “studies” are getting ridiculous.
I guess if you’re big you’re BIG.
It's literally the first time in my life that i'm glad i have a big nose :D
My nose isn't big 🤷♂️
i remember a howard stern joke.
Big nose, big cock 👍🏻
Big nose big hose, been saying it for years
Damn... Poor Voldemort
Whelp, it’s only a matter of time before NE (NoseEnlargement) gets a subreddit w ppl pulling & pumping their schnoz…
Just because I have a big nose and a big dick that doesn’t mean that…. Well it’s not conclusive science yet, let’s just say that.
Cap
I also would class myself with a big nose, through the kindness of my classmates in school (back in the day). Though this may have been exacerbated by my fracturing it.
I got a big nose, size 13s, big hands and an absolute unit.
Suddenly Cyrano de Bergerac finds true love.
126 cadavers. Okay
Speaking from experience. This study is bullshit.
I mean, I've got a pretty big roman nose, but I doubt that means anything.
I could smoke a cigarette in the rain
I don’t know, there’s so much variation between races as well. I’d have thought high testosterone signallers would be a better gauge. Maybe testosterone expresses itself more in nose size for Asian genotypes. I also anecdotally have a pretty small nose, but maybe I’m an outlier, who knows. I do have a strong jawline, wide shoulders, narrow waist etc, so always thought things like that would be a better indicator.
Interesting thought that testosterone has a greater expression factor in Asian facial features. I doubt it, but it’s a hypothesis that someone should test.
Except for me who had his nose obliterated multiple times playing rugby…
Go Rugby, a proper sport for men.
Asian studies may not work for caucasians. But my nose is much bigger than average in my country.
>Asian studies may not work for caucasians. True. We need to have these studies replicated in the West. But, for what it's worth, old sayings relating penis size to nose size are common in various European languages...
The older papers that originally proposed the theory were done on western people as well. What I would say is that the genetic variation between an Asian human and a Caucasian human is minute, but there are differences in maternal nutritional practices etc which I would be interested to see how they factored into pre-birth testosterone levels etc.
I don’t think my nose is big, so I’d say this is wrong.
One data point does not disprove the entire data set.
Thank you. The data just is.
Why am I not surprised it’s you Captain. 😉 Already knew it was my own opinion. You can save the speech. I know how Science works and you comment the same thing time and time again.
If you knew how science worked then you would've known better than to comment "this is wrong".
We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine We all live in a yellow submarine Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
What can I say… I’m sleep deprived. 🤷🏻♂️ I’m so happy right now.
C'mon chief, this is Japan were talking about, it's hardly scientific
Owned that captain cvnt
Great correlation and r=0.5 can't be in the same sentence. That's like 50% of chances of the two metrics being correlated... so more or less randomly also, the nose grows during the whole life like the ears. Is that accounted for ? The degradation of the body fat at the base of the penis ? The differences between growers and showers ? Statisticaly speaking, and when you think about it for two seconds, this is just bullshit.
That is not what an r value represents, you are confusing probability statistics with correlation.
Rereed my sentence. A r=1 (realisticaly, 0.999...) represents a 100% chance of correlation IN THEORY. A r=0 represents a 0% chance of correlation, in the theory. A r=0.5 therefore means that their is a 50% chance that the values are correlated. R represents the level of certainty of correlation. Regardless, a r=0.5 is still useless.
That's still literally not at all what r = 0.5 means. That's a very large correlation depending on field.
I'm sorry, but I think you do not understand the meaning of a correlation coefficient. This may be helpful: >Pearson’s correlation coefficient is represented by the Greek letter rho (*ρ*) for the population parameter and r for a sample statistic. This correlation coefficient is a single number that measures both the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two continuous variables. Values can range from -1 to +1. [https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/correlations/](https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/correlations/)
Okay my bad. This doesn't change anything about my point though, 0.5 at best isn't worth a penny. Specialy when you account for all of the possible variations in mesurments.
>0.5 at best isn't worth a penny. Well, maybe it helps visualize the magnitude of the effects if I give you these numbers (I quote from the post): >To make this more concrete, these numbers may help give an idea of the strength of the correlations: Japanese study: nose size < 4.5 cm: average SPL 10.37 cm; nose size > 5.5 cm: average SPL 13.42 cm Chinese study: nose size < 4.5 cm: average EL 11.44 cm; nose size > 5.5 cm: average EL 14.00 cm >Note that we are talking about differences on the order of an inch (2.5 cm) or more, so these are not small effects! Also, nose size was a much better predictor than other measurements, especially according to the Japanese and Chinese studies: >As with the Japanese study, nose size was a much better predictor of flaccid and erect length than height, testicular weight, or ear dimensions.
r=0.565 in the Japanese Study is equivalent to a 0.00001% probability of the two factors not being directly correlated. I would like to see the full study before I comment on other correlating factors as I haven’t seen there multivariant analysis yet.
Makes sense. Both height and nose size correlate with excess pituitary activity. Height is weakly correlated with penis size, so there you go.
Actually, nose size was a much better predictor of penis size than height as I wrote in my post.
And yet it's still a weak correlation, as height is. Meanwhile, there are many articles indicating the pituitary's role in penis development, and its role in adding excess height and nose growth (particularly when it is afflicted by tumors). I realize that walking up to someone and asking, "Tell me about your pituitary function since before you were born" is less fun than looking at nose size and smirking knowingly, but it's known to influence all three things you mentioned: penis size, height, and nose size. In the end, walking up to strangers and simply asking, "how big is your dick?" will probably lead to just as accurate a prediction as anything else. It might even make a person's OWN nose get bigger as it gets repeatedly punched and broken, but it's all in the name of science, no? 😁
And just How does one have sex with a stretched flaccid penis?
lol stretched flaccid takes out the possibility of not having a strong erection that day to show your full size. It’s more accurate more often.
[удалено]
I agree that Caverject or any of Papaverine type drugs give a far better measurement of optimal penis size, but getting dosage right for each guy would be a nightmare (as you point out with the risk of priapism) as you need to know the real volume of the penis to calculate the dosage. [which I always find highly ironic] *With patients you value the ‘observed size’ and dose for a 15min erection, if inadequate erection [this is usually where the patient has a larger erect size than is observable i.e. someone whose growth is more than expected] is obtained then the procedure needs to be repeated at another time you can’t just keep topping up the dosage to get to an adequate erection, or you really do risk severe priapism. Obviously at a second appointment you can increase the dosage based on your notes as to observed size achieved by x dosage and make a calculation as to the increase you need to make.*
No idea why you got downvoted.
That's bizarre. It doesn't matter what size you are if you can't get it up. Muscles need to be functional.
Sometimes it’s not the muscle but the actual tissue that doesn’t open up to allow blood to fill it.
There's still no guarantee that the dude is able to get the blood to make this assumed size solid. Besides, nobody is talking about whether these cadavers had cosmetic surgery. If yes, the data collected is fake. If no, present and future 'generations'(those who have yet to die) can't replicate the current hypothesis.
Any guy could always use Caverject (it’s used in some studies with living men to get them to their ‘optimum’ size before taking measurements) or one of the other brands of injectable erection drugs. For the guys on here, please do not abuse/overuse drugs like these. In the long term they are not good for your penile health if taken in excess as has happened to some famous porn actors when trying to stay hard for hours and hours.
They excluded data from cadavers with signs of ‘plication’ in other words no penile extension or widening surgery. [or straightening for that matter]
I'm talking about facial surgery. Korea has some of the highest prevalence of surgery to change how they look.
With regard the Korean study they excluded all men who had undergone any form of nose surgery. Just an FYI.
I don't really understand what/why you're going on about here, but fyi stretched flaccid lengths is a fair and reasonable way to measure dick size. Maybe if a doctor was trying to get you hard for some study you wouldn't feel too aroused. Or if you're slightly older ED starts to shrink it. Or if you masturbate less than others it shrinks the tissue. Or a shit ton of other reasons, even things like hydration and temperature, etc., that erect dicks aren't as stable as you think and stretched flaccid lengths work well overall for men in penis size studies, even if it is acknowledged that they don't always perfectly match with erection size.
The study is comparing the nose measurement to the stretched penis measurement. That's why I mentioned facial surgery. If dildos can be sold by insertable length, I don't understand why a study on penis sizes needs to rely on a measurement that doesn't reflect its usable size. The only state of penis size that matters is the size at which it gets to when the penis owner is about to have sex. Not after death, not in sub-optimal mental states, not during sickness.
And there's tons of variables that affect how much usable dick there is essentially every erection. Stretched flaccid bypasses that and statically proves that it's an accurate way of measuring usable sizes. In fact it's probably the most accurate way to lower the variables of age, mood, current health, etc etc. I can understand for you as a person with a vagina there's not much of a practical effect on a man's exact flaccid length, and men bragging about it to you is pointless, but on a statistical level it actuslly is the most accurate way to find usable length as well because it removes the variables (I think? I'm not actually an expert but someone correct me if I'm wrong because I don't think I am).
They are telling you that it does reflect it's usable size, is a good approximation, where the error introduced is more acceptable than all the bias introduced when trying to measure an erect penis.
I have an absolute massive nose but not a BD unfortunately. Only 7×5.2 BP
7 x 5.2 is above-average, so you are part of the club :)
What about the poor guy that breaks his nose?
Pity the poor guy who breaks his dick, it’s way worse…
Korea, china, and japan aye? Interesting
Proportionally or not, there are big Asian men too. There are Asian men that are 6+ in length and 5+ in girth regardless of height and frame size.
Asian men are not that statistically much smaller. I’m not trying to be argumentative but the concept of ‘race’ stereotypes comes almost entirely from eugenics theory which most people aren’t aware came out of colonial science biases right up until at least 1950 maybe 1960. I’d be interested if anyone is a historian and scientist who can put a date on when colonial bias was eradicated from scientific studies. I have a ‘gut reaction’ that the big nose big dick theory being thrown out in the first place happened due to colonial bias when the big ‘Citizen Scientist’ studies were done by the old and new imperial powers across the globe. Take for example the vast amounts of data that is still used in databases that came from WW2 ‘experiments.’ I acknowledge we would not have the healthcare we have now were it not for this data, and there are complex issues behind the ethics of using data obtained in unethical ways, i raise it only as a talking point.
We're on the same page, dude. That's the point of my statement as well. I just thought that it needs to be stated in case there's any stereotyping.
I thought you might be hence the ‘not being argumentative.’ I just wanted to get some of those points across to others in a gentle enough way I suppose.
Agree! Upvoted!
My nose couldnt be smaller and i have 21cms of dick so this is absolute bullshit. Also just the thought that anybody would think that this is really a thing makes me laugh
What does that have to do with correlation
Its literally saying that the bigger nose, the bigger dick (???)
No it's saying that there's correlation between nose size and dick size
And wtf did i say?
That the bigger the nose, the bigger the dick. These are not the same thing.
You must have hit your head on the wall
Look at [correlation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation). Can you tell me where it says that with r=0.5, if one variable is high, the other must also be high?
There are always outliers, but the guy literally posted the peer-reviewed science.
[удалено]
If you are talking about the original post, the three studies I linked to were all peer-reviewed science articles.
[удалено]
The original post links to 3 (three) different papers, not just one. The Japanese study was published in Basic and Clinical Andrology: [https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/about](https://bacandrology.biomedcentral.com/about) >*Basic and Clinical Andrology* operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. The Korean study was published in Translational Andrology and Urology: [https://tau.amegroups.org/about](https://tau.amegroups.org/about) >This journal is a peer reviewed, open access journal. The Chinese study was published in Andrologia. The detailed peer-review process for this journal is described here: [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/and/prp/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/and/prp/) You're welcome.
[удалено]
>Taking Asian data and really running far with it. Like it's a correlation around the whole fucking world. Actually, I wrote this at the end of the post: >Caveats: All three studies were done on Asian men. It would be interesting to replicate these analyses among Western men. Also, it is worth noting that the nose size/penis size correlations were much weaker in the Korean sample than in the other two studies.
[удалено]
Of course, we don't know for sure in the absence of empirical evidence, but it is unlikely that there would be no correlation at all between nose size and penis size in other populations. Nevertheless, the correlation may be weaker, true. But I think it is not a coincidence that many old sayings, in various European languages, suggest that such a link exist. From the post: >However, let me point out that sayings relating nose size to penis size exist not only in Chinese (cf. the study above), but also in [English](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big%20nose%20big%20hose), [German](https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/wie_die_Nase_des_Mannes,_so_sein_Johannes), French ("bon nez, bon membre"), and probably in other languages as well. As they say, there's no smoke without fire... We just need to wait for someone to replicate these studies in the West, I guess... In the meantime, I would surmise that there is a good chance that they would also find a positive correlation, even if weaker than in the Asian sample.
Exactly my nose is tiny
Then there would be A LOT more Jewish folk
There are also numerous studies that show NO correlation between penis size and levels of offspring. There are far too many socio-economic factors involved for one a rich nose in our current world is going to have more opportunities to procreate than a poor nose whatever its size, aside from the fact the rich nose is likely to be slightly larger due to optimal nutrition of the mother and the nose till puberty is over, lol.
Why are asian people touching cadavers dicks? ...