Jake H. Waskett/Editorial: Difference between revisions

}}</ref> This makes the results of self reporting scrupulous. Furthermore Intact men are typically made to feel outcast in a majority circumcised U.S. Since humans value conformity so much<ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref> this effect, if it exists, will exist no longer because the majority of children born today in the U.S. are left intact.<ref>{{REFnews

}}</ref> Also, younger people tend to value conformity more then adults, so an internet surveys geared toward younger people will yield results infavor of conformity.

Therefore It is irrational to project a preference for circumcision onto infant children based on such information.

Jake goes further to supply study's of adult men who underwent circumcision, some study participants reported an improvement,<ref name="masood2005">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> In any event it is flawed to use such study's to rationalize a projection because as i discussed above in the section on cognitive dissonance, human animals are programed to over state the value of their end decision while simultaneously rationalizing the effort it took to get irreversibly circumcised as an adult.

Jake goes on to use another study of self assessment in determining the sensitivity of the foreskin.<ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref> But as discussed earlier people are not even able to determine their own circumcision status much less the five components of the foreskin and their sensitivity.