Golden Ratio Project Statistics 1510 (Day) Chase Comfort

Abstract (Under Construction) Introduction "You are a beautiful, unique snowake, just like everyone else." -Unknown The idea of the "Golden Ratio" as it applies to humans is that there is a special ratio that is common throughout nature, and that this ratio is somehow responsible for our ability to evolve in a way that allowed us to survive. To arrive at the "Golden Ratio", one must rst understand the Fibonacci sequence. In the Fibonacci sequence, the proceeding two numbers on a number line are added to make a third number, starting with 0 and 1. What is interesting about this sequence of numbers is that, as you move through the sequence, the ratio of the adjacent numbers approaches a certain number. That ratio is the "Golden Ratio", approximately 1.618. The purpose of this project is to make an assertion as to whether or not the anatomy of different human groups are based on the Golden Ratio, and to back it up with evidence. Hypothesis: I hypothesize that the ratios that are given will be reasonably close to the Golden Ratio regardless of race or gender. Data Collection To collect data for this project, I rst decided on what groups I wanted to compare. To make sample collection easy, and to roughly represent the population of Taft, I decided to go with groups divided into gender (male/female) and race (white/ Hispanic). With these groups in mind, I decided on two examples of golden ratios given to us in the project video, length of wrist to elbow divided by length of nger to wrist and distance from navel to top of head divided by distance from shoulder line to top of head. To make these measurements, I used a simple measuring tape, and recorded the results in centimeters. I wanted to keep the groups as even as possible, so I decided to take measurements from 5 white males, 5 Hispanic males, 5 white females and 5 Hispanic females, for a total of 20 subjects. Once I had decided on the amount of people from each group I would need to measure, I took simple random samples of students in the Taft College library that met the criteria of the groups. I measured the lengths of interest on these students and recorded the results in TC-Stats. Once I had my raw data, I was able to use the column arithmetic function of TC-Stats to solve for the ratios I was interested in. With this method of grouping, I was able to compare the ratios of 10 males to 10 females, and 10 whites to 10 Hispanics, and provide the summary statistics below. Summary Statistics of Ratios for Males:

Summary Statistics of Ratios for Females:

Legend: Ratio 1= Length of wrist to elbow divided by length of nger to wrist. Ratio 2= Length from navel to top of head divided by length from shoulder-line to top of head. While we could make comparisons based off of the summary statistics, it would help to have a clear visual representation of the data in order to understand what is happening.To visualize what the summary statistics are telling us, I utilized the box-andwhisker plot function of TC-Stats to make the following comparative charts. Male versus Female: (M=Male F=Female) Legend: Ratio 1= Length of wrist to elbow divided by length of nger to wrist. Ratio 2= Length from navel to top of head divided by length from shoulder-line to top of head

This chart allows us to see what the data is telling us. For Ratio 1, Females had a minimum of 1.3714, a median average of 1.47105, a maximum of 1.6, and a standard deviation of approximately 0.0798. For the same ratio, Males had a minimum of 1.4211, a median average of 1.5076, a maximum of 1.7222 and a standard deviation of

approximately 0.1047. This data shows that these groups were fairly similar with respect to the number line, even though the Males had a slightly higher variance. Also, both of the groups provided ratios close to the Golden Ratio. For Ratio 2, Females had a minimum value of 1.6667, a median average of 1.9483, a maximum at 2.1154 and a standard deviation of approximately 0.1489. The Males for Ratio 2 had a minimum of 1.8065, a median average of 1.87955, a maximum of 2.1852 and a standard deviation of approximately 0.1247. Again, relative to the number line, these groups are similar, but with respect to each other the Female group has a slightly higher variance. Both of these groups had averages much higher than the Golden Ratio, suggesting that either Ratio 2 is not an actual Golden Ratio or that my measurements introduced bias in making the values higher than they truly are. The second comparison of ratios was made for White and Hispanic groups. Below are the summary statistics. Summary Statistics for Whites:

Summary Statistics for Hispanics:

In order to visualize the information, I created another set of box-and-whisker plots to compare the distributions.

Legend: Ratio 1= Length of wrist to elbow divided by length of nger to wrist. Ratio 2= Length from navel to top of head divided by length from shoulder-line to top of head White versus Hispanic Ratio1

For Ratio 1, Hispanics had a minimum of 1.375, a median average of 1.50675, a maximum of 1.667 and a standard deviation of approximately 0.1. In comparison, the Ratio 1 values for Whites had a minimum of 1.3714, a median average of 1.50675, a maximum of 1.7222 and a standard deviation of approximately 0.0981. The rst value that I wanted to double-check was the White maximum, as I wanted to know if a single anomalous value had "thrown off" my box plot. Upon reviewing the data, however, I saw that there was another value between the 3rd Quartile and the maximum. What is most striking about this data comparison is that the median values are the same, emphasizing the fact that these groups are very similar, although the White group had a slightly lower variance. White versus Hispanic Ratio 2

For Ratio 2, the Hispanic group had a minimum of 1.7857, a median average of 1.9909, a maximum of 2.1154, and a standard deviation of approximately 0.115. Ratio 2 for the White group had a minimum of 1.667, a median average of 1.8938, a maximum of 2.1852, and a standard deviation of approximately 0.1529. Again, the Ratio 2 data had every value over the Golden Ratio, suggesting that I either introduced bias to my data or that this ratio is not in fact a Golden Ratio. As we can see above, the White group had a higher variance, but the groups are still similar relative to the number line.

 My initial hypothesis was not entirely correct. While the groups did show similarities to each other for every comparison of the ratios, only Ratio 1 had averages near the Golden Ratio. For Ratio 2, while the groups were similar to each other, they were not as close to the Golden Ratio. Conclusion (Under Construction) Raw Data Legend: M=Male F=Female W=White H=Hispanic
Sex M M M M M M M M M M F F F F F F F F F F Race Shoulder-Top of Head W 29.5 W 32 W 27 W 31 W 28.5 H 27.5 H 29.5 H 28 H 24 H 29 W 28 W 24 W 27 W 29 W 25 H 28 H 23 H 25 H 26 H 28 Navel-Top of Head Ratio 1 55 1.4211 59 1.5 59 1.5152 56 1.4211 54 1.7222 54.5 1.5 55 1.6667 52 1.6 50 1.5556 58 1.4211 53 1.5429 50 1.4211 45 1.3714 55 1.5135 52 1.5143 50 1.5135 46 1.3889 45 1.375 55 1.4286 56 1.6 Ratio 2 1.8644 1.8438 2.1852 1.8065 1.8947 1.9818 1.8644 1.8571 2.0833 2 1.8929 2.0833 1.6667 1.8966 2.08 1.7857 2 1.8 2.1154 2