GOLDEN RATIO PROJECT: PHASE I BRIAN JEAN STATS 1510 DAY

BY NICOLE FROST

Introduction For this project, we were required to study the Golden Ratio of 1.618. To do this, we took measurements from a variety of different people or things to either support or disprove the Golden Ratio. My sample consists of 34 people and the measurements I took were fingertip to elbow, wrist to elbow, finger length, and the length of just their first two finger segments. All measurements were taken in centimeters. In order for the Golden Ratio to be true, the length of their fingertip to their elbow divided by the length of their wrist to their elbow should equal approximately 1.618 and the length of their finger divided by the length of their first two finger segments should equal approximately 1.618. For my hypothesis, I believed that the Golden Ratio was true. I thought that all of the ratios in my results would be close to 1.618. Methods In order to obtain and record the necessary measurements for this project, I used a tape measure, a notebook, a pen, and TC-Stats. I work at Taft Union High School and Lincoln Junior High, so my measurements came from a sample of students from each school. Also, I measured students at Taft College. Results After calculating the ratios obtained from the 34 individuals, I found out that my hypothesis was wrong. The ratios ranged from 1.1053 to 1.8478 and, as shown by Figure 1, the mean for the FINGER ratio was 1.5643, the mean for the ELBOW ratio was 1.6701, the median for the FINGER ratio was 1.589 and the median for the ELBOW ratio was 1.6746. The mean and median of both ratios were close to the Golden Ratio of 1.618, but the minimum and maximum values show a lot of variation. The minimum value for the FINGER ratio was 1.1053, which is fairly far away from the Golden Ratio. The ELBOW ratio, on the other hand, produced a minimum value of 1.5336 which is much closer to the Golden Ratio. Both ratios maximum values were above 1.82 and this is quite different from the Golden Ratio. By looking at the sample standard deviation of both ratios, you can see that the results of the ELBOW ratio were generally closer to the Golden Ratio because they have a standard deviation of 0.0772 whereas the FINGER ratio produced a sample standard deviation on 0.1375. FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2 also shows the variation between the two ratios. The overall results from the ELBOW ratio produced a distribution that is slightly skewed left, but mainly bell-shaped. The values in the ELBOW ratio were closer together and they were also closer to the Golden Ratio. The FINGER ratio makes a skewed-left shaped box plot and there was a greater standard deviation which means the values were more spread apart from the median and each other. The minimum and maximum values of the FINGER ratio were much farther apart than the minimum and maximum values of the ELBOW ratio. FIGURE 2

For this project, I compared the results between Hispanic and White people and between Male and Females. FIGURE 3 represents the Hispanic sample and FIGURE 4 represents the white sample. FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 3 shows that the ELBOW ratio for Hispanics produced a skewed-left distribution with relatively close minimum and maximum values and the FINGER ratio produced a skewed-right

distribution with more spread-out minimum and maximum values. FIGURE 4 shows that the ELBOW ratio for White people produced a slightly skewed-right distribution with minimum and maximum values that are approximately the same distance from the mean, in either direction. Also, FIGURE 4 shows that the FINGER ratio produced a skewed-right shaped distribution and the minimum and maximum values for this ratio are very widely separated. FIGURE 5 shows the summary statistics for Hispanics in this study. The mean and median values for both ratios are very close to each other and these values are also very close to the Golden Ratio. The minimum value for the FINGER ratio is 1.4444 and the maximum value for this ratio is 1.8478. The minimum value for the ELBOW ratio is 1.5536 and the maximum value is 1.8295. FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6 shows the summary statistics for the White individuals in this study and the results are very different. The mean and median values for both ratios are farther apart than those for the Hispanics. The minimum and maximum values for the White ELBOW ratio, like the Hispanic ELBOW ratio, dont show much variation but the minimum and maximum values for the FINGER ratio are very far apart. While the Hispanic sample standard deviations for the FINGER and ELBOW ratios were 0.0963 and 0.0836 respectively, the sample standard deviations for the White FINGER and ELBOW ratios were 0.1529 and 0.0712 respectively. The FINGER ratios for the White sample have the greatest deviation from the median. FIGURE 6

Out of the 34 people in the sample, 16 were Hispanic. The 2010 census states that Taft has 35.9% Hispanic population, but my sample represents a 47.1% Hispanic population. For Phase II, I will need to adjust these values to represent Taft accurately.

I made another comparison between Males and Females. FIGURE 7 represents the Females in the study and FIGURE 8 represents the Males. FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 7 shows that the Females ELBOW ratio produced a slightly skewed left graph and their FINGER ratio made a skewed-left shaped distribution with decently varied minimum and maximum values. FIGURE 8 shows that the Males ELBOW ratio produced a skewed-left shaped distribution with very close minimum and maximum values and their FINGER ratio produced a skewed-left graph with minimum and maximum values that are very far apart. FIGURE 9 shows the summary statistics for the Males and FIGURE 10 shows the summary statistics for the Females. The results for both genders were very similar. Their sample distributions for both ratios were very close to each other and their means and medians for both ratios were nearly the same, as well.

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

For this experiment, I measured 12 Males and 18 Females. These measurements arent accurately representative of Taft because, as the 2010 census states, Taft is made up of 53.6 % Males and 46.4 % Females. My results represent a population with 52.9 % Females and 47.1 % Males. For Phase II, these values need to be adjusted.

Appendix LEGEND F= Female M= Male H= Hispanic W= White

RAW DATA

Gender F F M F F M F F M F F F F M M M M F M F F F F F F M F F F M M F F M

Race H W W W W W W W H W H W W H H W W W H H H W H W W H H H H H H W W H

FINGER RATIO ELBOW RATIO 1.4444 1.7773 1.4474 1.6718 1.1053 1.6126 1.5143 1.6774 1.3429 1.6175 1.5143 1.7273 1.3235 1.6513 1.7353 1.6654 1.4571 1.7046 1.4412 1.685 1.625 1.6948 1.6875 1.5336 1.4583 1.725 1.5926 1.75 1.5849 1.5651 1.5862 1.652 1.6458 1.75 1.625 1.6477 1.7442 1.7568 1.5918 1.6174 1.6667 1.7095 1.62 1.5741 1.62 1.5916 1.5273 1.7398 1.5106 1.5646 1.5918 1.7773 1.5833 1.7063 1.6122 1.6119 1.8478 1.8295 1.5814 1.6829 1.6857 1.5536 1.5385 1.7863 1.6757 1.564 1.6585 1.6087

Conclusion

---Under Construction---