- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Posts
- 4,619
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 78
- Points
- 268
- Location
- California (United States)
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
It has been previously noted in this thread that before it becomes a really useful FAQ it needs citations, and more detail. I concede this point, and agree. I compound that sin in that I am more interested in it being useful to a general reader than passing muster as a scientific treatise, and therefore tend toward the style of popularizing journalism more than journal articles.
In the previous post BigBen now casts further aspersions on it. He specifies that it is not an attack on me personally, which is admirable, but (granting that there are a few valid points in his objections) still mischaracterizes the FAQ in ways that I think ought to be answered. Even after openly declaring this FAQ to be an interpretive summary of the more detailed and extensively cited data on Wikipedia’s site, I think “junk science” is an overstatement. This criticism stings, most especially because it seems oddly justified by a set of very dubious assertions all in itself. To start with, my post is not science at all, and does not claim to be. I am not the publisher of any studies on this subject, just someone trying to synthesize (and simplify) current information on the matter for those who want or need quick information.
BigBen’s objections to my original post, though a little hard to follow, can be summarized quickly:
First, he objects to methodological problems with size surveys, especially Kinsey. This confuses me, since most of the methodological problems he finds objectionable with penis size studies were noted in my own editorializing. It seems a bit odd to be taken to task as if I committed them, especially since I pointed them out and he merely rehashes my list. The point on which we concur: Many studies, including Kinsey, have to be taken with a grain of salt because they were plagued by unrepresentative sampling pools, self-reporting that now seems dubious, and occasionally outright racist assumptions. The older the study the more caution that needs to be exercised. We, however, disagree that such problems go unconsidered in the FAQ and render it junk.
Second he objects that all studies are invalid because a sample of a “couple of thousand” people cannot correlate to the full adult male population of Earth. This is not the place to justify statistical sampling techniques but suffice it so to say that they are certainly well established and widely validated. It is possible to have too small a sample, or an unrepresentative sample, but that does not mean that one cannot arrive at a sensible average without measuring every adult male on the planet, of which there are far fewer than 3.5 billion. Far from sampling being thought invalid in scientific circles, with proper precautions it has made much of modern science possible. Granting again that full citation might make clearer what the size of the numbers are, the sample considered is more than adequate to correlate.
Thirdly, he objects to the frequency chart because nature does not occur in whole numbers. Let me immediately grant that this FAQ would be more precise and scientifically valid if distribution frequency were rendered as a chart of standard deviations away from the mean. Unfortunately, that results in difficult to grasp statements something like this: “Jamison and Gebhard found the average erect size to be 6.21", with a standard deviation of .77".” I am still not fond of the illustrative power of a qualifier, like this: “This means that 95% of men will not be more or less than 1.54" inches from the average value.” I find the “powers of ten” scale, which is openly human in design, to be more illustrative, if less precise. (The scientifically dubious part of the chart, IMO, is that the correlations fall conveniently at one-inch increments, but I thought I openly acknowledged that these were a product of rounding. Incidentally, the high end of the scale is the most dubious because no penises of extreme size appear in most studies at all. Those frequencies may well be over-estimated and I suppose I should have said so more plainly.)
It took me several readings to understand that BigBen primarily doubts the validity of the FAQ, however, because it suggests a frequency of very large penises that is way too low for him. His stated reason for so doubting is specifically that the numbers of such large penises on LPSG proves that they are much more common than this chart would suggest. (He also cites the unspecified size of his own penis, and some that he has anecdotally encountered.) While I think the FAQ is open to much improvement, I specifically don’t think that the problem with it is that it suggests an average size that is way too small, or underestimates the numbers of very large penises in the population. I especially don’t think LPSG is a good basis for this objection. One would expect to find an unrepresentatively large sample at a site called the “Large Penis Support Group.” And, myself, I am a bit dubious about some of the claims (and even some of the pictures) presented here.
In the same way that Ben notes his post is not an attach on me, let me say that no personal disrespect is intended in return, but it does seem strange that after assailing the “scientific” validity of the FAQ to find the challenge resting on such a subjective and purely anecdotal objection.
In the previous post BigBen now casts further aspersions on it. He specifies that it is not an attack on me personally, which is admirable, but (granting that there are a few valid points in his objections) still mischaracterizes the FAQ in ways that I think ought to be answered. Even after openly declaring this FAQ to be an interpretive summary of the more detailed and extensively cited data on Wikipedia’s site, I think “junk science” is an overstatement. This criticism stings, most especially because it seems oddly justified by a set of very dubious assertions all in itself. To start with, my post is not science at all, and does not claim to be. I am not the publisher of any studies on this subject, just someone trying to synthesize (and simplify) current information on the matter for those who want or need quick information.
BigBen’s objections to my original post, though a little hard to follow, can be summarized quickly:
First, he objects to methodological problems with size surveys, especially Kinsey. This confuses me, since most of the methodological problems he finds objectionable with penis size studies were noted in my own editorializing. It seems a bit odd to be taken to task as if I committed them, especially since I pointed them out and he merely rehashes my list. The point on which we concur: Many studies, including Kinsey, have to be taken with a grain of salt because they were plagued by unrepresentative sampling pools, self-reporting that now seems dubious, and occasionally outright racist assumptions. The older the study the more caution that needs to be exercised. We, however, disagree that such problems go unconsidered in the FAQ and render it junk.
Second he objects that all studies are invalid because a sample of a “couple of thousand” people cannot correlate to the full adult male population of Earth. This is not the place to justify statistical sampling techniques but suffice it so to say that they are certainly well established and widely validated. It is possible to have too small a sample, or an unrepresentative sample, but that does not mean that one cannot arrive at a sensible average without measuring every adult male on the planet, of which there are far fewer than 3.5 billion. Far from sampling being thought invalid in scientific circles, with proper precautions it has made much of modern science possible. Granting again that full citation might make clearer what the size of the numbers are, the sample considered is more than adequate to correlate.
Thirdly, he objects to the frequency chart because nature does not occur in whole numbers. Let me immediately grant that this FAQ would be more precise and scientifically valid if distribution frequency were rendered as a chart of standard deviations away from the mean. Unfortunately, that results in difficult to grasp statements something like this: “Jamison and Gebhard found the average erect size to be 6.21", with a standard deviation of .77".” I am still not fond of the illustrative power of a qualifier, like this: “This means that 95% of men will not be more or less than 1.54" inches from the average value.” I find the “powers of ten” scale, which is openly human in design, to be more illustrative, if less precise. (The scientifically dubious part of the chart, IMO, is that the correlations fall conveniently at one-inch increments, but I thought I openly acknowledged that these were a product of rounding. Incidentally, the high end of the scale is the most dubious because no penises of extreme size appear in most studies at all. Those frequencies may well be over-estimated and I suppose I should have said so more plainly.)
It took me several readings to understand that BigBen primarily doubts the validity of the FAQ, however, because it suggests a frequency of very large penises that is way too low for him. His stated reason for so doubting is specifically that the numbers of such large penises on LPSG proves that they are much more common than this chart would suggest. (He also cites the unspecified size of his own penis, and some that he has anecdotally encountered.) While I think the FAQ is open to much improvement, I specifically don’t think that the problem with it is that it suggests an average size that is way too small, or underestimates the numbers of very large penises in the population. I especially don’t think LPSG is a good basis for this objection. One would expect to find an unrepresentatively large sample at a site called the “Large Penis Support Group.” And, myself, I am a bit dubious about some of the claims (and even some of the pictures) presented here.
In the same way that Ben notes his post is not an attach on me, let me say that no personal disrespect is intended in return, but it does seem strange that after assailing the “scientific” validity of the FAQ to find the challenge resting on such a subjective and purely anecdotal objection.
