Penis length nomogram
- Thread starter punk09
- Start date
Reading seems quite difficult. I wrote "we are still looking for proof of a 9 inch dick (correctly measure and all)". Not 12, not 13. "Only" 9. Because of all stupid claims everybody thinks average penis is 7" and to be huge you should have 10" at least. Here also claims fly around that people are off chart etc. No proof provided though.
I understand standard deviation. If you do too, and you know rules about rounding numbers you do know that 99.5% here rounds up to 100%. And that in the region of say 99.9% and higher it won't draw as a perfect line anymore. So there might be people really off chart.
Btw. I don't think I got dealt the short straw. As far as I can read from that diagram I am one of the happy 1%. Shame it looks shorter because of my girth, but I hardly ever complain about that. And I am not into trickery to make my penis look bigger to strangers on the internet. If the diagram is wrong and I be one of the happy 10%? Fine with me either. But what I can tell from loads and loads of pictures and studies the diagram might be quite accurate. NBEL and measured correctly that is ..
I was responding to williaj9 who provided pictures as "proof". The 2nd of those is clearly altered.I'm not clear about what you're saying. The pics that I submitted were taken over an 18 month period. With pubes and the most recent without.
If you're suggesting that any of mine are altered, I'm truly flattered.
You can look at my pics if you want proof, but I don't care about what you think.
I guess reading is difficult. You're looking for proof of 9 inches, but the chart stops at 8.25. If you don't think that exists then your eyes aren't open. 99.5% might round up to 100%, but there is a pretty important distinction in statistics. Rounding up numbers is not a reliable way to develop statistics. There are a lot of people that lie about their size on this site, but there are plenty that don't. I am one of those and I don't rely on camera tricks or angles.
Believe whatever you want, the truth is that I've measured myself and I know my size. The chart doesn't account for it. I also know that there are plenty larger than I am, I've seen evidence of it.
You don't appear to be in the 1% from what I can see in your gallery, or the 10%. All I see is a sad person who doesn't have what he wants and needs to attack others in an attempt to fulfill what isn't there.
I only have two hands. Its hard to hold a camera, a ruler, and my cock at the same time.
Did you forget how to quote or were you hoping I wouldn't see your response?
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=standard+deviation
Did you forget how to quote or were you hoping I wouldn't see your response?
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=standard+deviation
Sad excuse. You claim to have seen evidence yet you can't provide it. Not sure why you did add that link. All I am saying is I don't believe lots of people are bigger than the 8.25 inches. So it is quite natural those are not accounted for in that diagram.
And why would I hope for you not to see my response? What is the point of that???
So you think you're in the 1%, meaning 8.25 inches according to the chart. But you can't possibly imagine someone being bigger than you are? There are lots of people on this site who are obviously larger than you are. Seems like I was right in my earlier response, you want to be the biggest and are mad that you aren't so you attack others in an attempt to prove that they aren't what can be seen in their pics.
The point of the link is to help you get a basic understanding of stand deviations. Let's pretend that you are in the 1% according to this chart. That means that there is a percentage larger than you however small that percentage might be.
If that's all you are saying then say it without trying to call people out. It makes you look pathetic.
If you want proof of a penis that is longer than 8.25 inches then come on over and hold the ruler for me.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Posts
- 1,154
- Media
- 5
- Likes
- 743
- Points
- 433
- Age
- 40
- Location
- Schaumburg (Illinois, United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
?
Maybe try scrolling through the diagram (use the bar above it) and find out that it writes starting from 16.7 cm "Would put it approximately* in the 99th percentile, meaning it is longer than 99% of the population measured in the study." And yes. I am bigger than that NBEL. And yes, there are people bigger than me. And no, I don't care.
Maybe try scrolling through the diagram (use the bar above it) and find out that it writes starting from 16.7 cm "Would put it approximately* in the 99th percentile, meaning it is longer than 99% of the population measured in the study." And yes. I am bigger than that NBEL. And yes, there are people bigger than me. And no, I don't care.
Strange you can take a picture with tape while flaccid-ish, but not while hard. Also takes one hand to hold dick and ruler and one to take a pic. But you have a volunteer already. So looking forward to it
Ignoring the 1% comment you made? You said you were in the 1% but you're so thick that it makes it look short. Where is your proof? It doesn't look like much to me.
And yes, I have a volunteer apparently, its because of photographic evidence. Where is you evidence of being in the 1%. Stop ignoring it and give the response you are asking for yourself. You are in the 1% so you should be at least 8.25 inches, and no one in the world can match your size. You say your penis looks short because its so thick, how about a picture measuring your girth? Don't ask anyone to do it until you do it yourself.
I don't do it because of people like you. If I did take a picture with you holding my cock against a rule (I said its hard to do with only two hands) you would find a reason that it isn't legitimate. I'm not going to do anything because some sad, jealous, pathetic excuse for a man asks me to. You see your own size and pretend that you are the biggest and anytime you see something bigger than you you have to make excuses for why its bigger. You need to accept what you are and live with it.
Again, if you want proof you can come over and hold my cock next to a ruler. Don't let it destroy you that someone can be bigger than your "1%" dick.
And it is hard holding my dick and a ruler and a camera at the time time while trying to get a measurement that would satisfy someone like you, there is always some point to complain about. Maybe the ruler isn't against the full length, or maybe the ruler isn't as accurate as a tape measure, or maybe I have a defective tape measure. There's always some excuse for why it isn't real so that you can be happy with yourself and what you have. Again, sorry about the short straw.
I am telling you that I know my size and this chart does not account for it. You can believe it or not. I'm not doing anything to appease you, if you need a picture then the offer has already been made. If you are going to question my status then you better be able to back up your own, but you have two euros covering most of your dick and claim to be in the 1% of the biggest. You just feel the need to bring down anyone who has the benefit of better genes. I'm sorry for you, it's sad that you feel a need to make yourself something that you're not, but you need to get over that.
Wow. So being more than 16.7 cm, which is where you get into the 99% range according to the graph, equals more than 8.25 inches. Never knew that. Now I suddenly understand all exaggerating. So here is a link for you:
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+much+is+16.7+cm+in+inches
I am not repeat not claiming to be the largest. I am not. I don't think I am as long or longer than you. Because I am not 7.75 to 8 inches (which is my estimate for you). Happy?
Back to my point. In this thread almost everybody responds with "Can't be true". "I am off scale". Yet I didn't find any evidence to back those claims. You can now ask me to come with prove I am bigger than 16.7 cm. I happen to not find that very interesting. At least in my gallery I dare to compare my dick to objects, so you can sorta do the math yourself. And no. There is no accurate measurement. I provided the gallery for the "Guess the size" thread which is less fun when an exact measurement is added.
Anyway. This is where it always goes wrong. Claims versus evidence. I am happy if you don't come up with evidence. Tells me exactly what I already knew. Getting evidence is the hard part (no pun intended)
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+much+is+16.7+cm+in+inches
I am not repeat not claiming to be the largest. I am not. I don't think I am as long or longer than you. Because I am not 7.75 to 8 inches (which is my estimate for you). Happy?
Back to my point. In this thread almost everybody responds with "Can't be true". "I am off scale". Yet I didn't find any evidence to back those claims. You can now ask me to come with prove I am bigger than 16.7 cm. I happen to not find that very interesting. At least in my gallery I dare to compare my dick to objects, so you can sorta do the math yourself. And no. There is no accurate measurement. I provided the gallery for the "Guess the size" thread which is less fun when an exact measurement is added.
Anyway. This is where it always goes wrong. Claims versus evidence. I am happy if you don't come up with evidence. Tells me exactly what I already knew. Getting evidence is the hard part (no pun intended)
I don't care about the size of your penis, or your guess of the size of mine, or your belief that anything does or does not exist. I do find it pretty interesting that you guess I'm 7.75 - 8 inches, even though you don't have the measured pic you wanted, which you now say wouldn't be very interesting. There are other guys who are obviously much larger than I am on this site. Even if they aren't measured there is evidence of that. That would mean that they would probably be 8 inches or larger, and in some cases much larger. So even by your own estimate you are admitting that there are probably 9 inch penises out there, even if you don't have the picture that you find so uninteresting now.
Either that or you are saying that I have the largest human penis in existence, which we both know is not true.
I don't take erect measured pictures, one reason is what I mentioned before, its difficult to properly measure while holding a camera. And, if you don't take a picture in the exact way that every one agrees in the proper way, even though there has never really been a consensus on that, then you get accused of faking the measurement and no one is satisfied until you take a dozen additional measured pictures that meet the specifications of every person who complains. I prefer to avoid that by simply not taking any measured erect pictures. I don't know if I should apologize for not having a measured picture or if you should thank me for keeping it interesting, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind either.
Either that or you are saying that I have the largest human penis in existence, which we both know is not true.
I don't take erect measured pictures, one reason is what I mentioned before, its difficult to properly measure while holding a camera. And, if you don't take a picture in the exact way that every one agrees in the proper way, even though there has never really been a consensus on that, then you get accused of faking the measurement and no one is satisfied until you take a dozen additional measured pictures that meet the specifications of every person who complains. I prefer to avoid that by simply not taking any measured erect pictures. I don't know if I should apologize for not having a measured picture or if you should thank me for keeping it interesting, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind either.
I am saying there is no photo evidence in a way that does matter. I also said before that on the boundaries things go strange. Just like the longest or shortest person on earth. I don't find a pic of yours interesting, because it is not 9 inches. And that was what we were after (as said before). You just skip the compare part which is easy enough ..
So still my point exist.
So still my point exist.
Unless you just love writing, Im wondering why you felt it important to present such a personal defense of details regarding your penis. I have to admit, however, that it was both entertaining and we'll written.
This data, or some very like it, has been posted here before. It is a wonderful example of how institutions of learning have failed in teaching statistics and experimental methods, causing "researchers" to publish misleading and incorrect information. Oh, hell, the teachers and/or professors have probably deluded themselves that what they have done is right, but it isn't.
The giveaway to how this data was (incorrectly) obtained is seen by clicking the link for the original graph at the bottom of the page. Notice that the curves are perfectly smooth and absolutely perfectly symmetrical. That is, the lower left part of each curve below the 50th percentile is an exact mirror image of the upper right part above the 50th percentile. If you were to replot this data as the probability vs. length, each line on the plot would form a perfect "bell curve," or Gaussian Distribution, aka Normal Distribution. And that is very suspicious, as I shall get to in a moment.
The full explanation follows, but by inspection of the curve, and a knowledge of what real-world data of any human measurement looks like, I can tell you each curve was artificially reconstructed from just two numbers: a Mean and a Standard Deviation. Regardless of what some ignorant teacher may have told you in school, such a reconstructed curve does not, and cannot, accurately represent the actual data at the extremes, except in very limited circumstances. The top and bottom 5% or so of the curve is therefore expected to be completely unreliable, because it does not reflect actual measured data.
For those who have the patience to read, here is a simplified explanation, without using much math...
They may have taught you in school that random distributions accurately follow such a normal distribution. But in fact this is not in general true, and is almost certainly not true for this biological case. (If you believe this to be true, you need to spend more time measuring real things.) The normal distribution is simply a mathematical construction which is easy to manipulate mathematically. Under certain conditions, a measurement which is expected to be affected by the combination of many independent, unrelated, random processes will indeed approach a normal distribution. This is a good assumption to make when trying to estimate the combined effect of, say, random measurement errors. But, in systems were there are non-random causes, or there are factors which make certain variations physically impossible, there is no reason to assume that the distribution will be close to normal. Human mating is a selective process, and as such the results should not be completely random. Further, there are some biological variations (such as mutations) which sometime may accentuate a particular characteristic, but at other times may prove fatal or otherwise unable to propagate. Again, not complete randomness.
Nevertheless, in life sciences, sociology, and anthropometrics (the study of the human body and its dimensions) it has become very customary to simply always assume a normal distribution. One reason for this is that the true distribution may never be known, because determining it may require measuring too many people, or may require measuring people that are not accessible to the study. For example, a great deal of available anthropometric data (other than penis size) comes from measurements made by armies of their enlisted men and women. But clearly people at the extremes of size (very short or extremely tall, very fat, etc.) never actually make it into the army, having been rejected at the recruitment station, so they never get measured and included in the data. It turns out that it is still possible to obtain useful data from the population that remains, but to do so you have to assume a distribution. And it is the normal distribution that is almost always assumed, even though it seldom is completely accurate in describing the data.
If you assume a normal distribution, you only need two numbers to describe the population: the Mean and the Standard Deviation (SD). The Mean is just the average of all the data points, and represents the peak of the bell curve. The SD is calculated from the squares of the difference of each individual data value from the mean, and determines how wide the bell spreads. However, the bell curve obtained in this way is always perfectly symmetrical around the mean, and is really always the same basic shape, except being stretched or compressed in width according to the SD.
It is very important to understand that in general none of the actual real data points lie exactly on the curve. The curve is only a sort of best fit through the data, as defined by the Mean and SD, but does not exactly describe the data. Also note that the curve extends, or extrapolates, beyond the range of available data. When the data does not have true normal distribution, the normal best fit obtained by calculating the Mean and SD tends to be better around the more common values (i.e. values near the Mean), and becomes increasingly poor as you move away from the mean. As you get still further from the mean, into the extreme cases, the actual data often has very little to do with the curve, because the actual factors which determine these extreme cases are not the multiple random factors that lead to a Normal distribution. But since there are very few data points out there, they have little influence on the shape of the curve. Although there are statistical tests to determine how well the Normal distribution actually fits the real data, these tend to be very insensitive to extreme values, and mostly focus on the central values, nearer the Mean.
Despite the fact that the Normal distribution may be a poor fit to actual human data, and that the researchers may only have actually measured some small central part of the population, the data is still quite useful for most purposes. For example, if you are a clothing manufacturer, you do not care about how tall or large the top 2% of the population is, because your reward for the great expense of manufacturing these special additional sizes would be at most a 2% revenue increase, and you would rather walk away from money-losing business. You do, however, care that your standard range of sizes fits perhaps 95% of the population, because that is where you make money. And in a Normal distribution, 95% of the population fits into just plus/minus 2 SD around the mean. So long as the Normal distribution does a reasonable job in predicting approximately how many people are each clothing size over this range, it commercially useful in allowing the manufacturer to plan how many of each size to produce. And in telling armies how may uniforms and boots of each size to buy. Nobody really cares about whether the curve fits the real data out at 3 SD, because there are so few people there (< 1%) that it is better to just ignore them, because you aren't going to make shoes in their size anyway.
So, the Normal distribution has stuck in anthropometric studies, because it might provide a reasonable fit to actual data over the range people care about (the middle 95%, or +/- 2 SD), and no one who uses it really cares about the others. And, by assuming this distribution, instead of having to consult big databases of actual data (a real pain in the ass in the pre-computer era) you only need to know 2 numbers, Mean and SD, and will have a useful, although imperfect, understanding of the part of the population you actually care about. Hence, it has become common to simply discard the actual data after the Mean and SD are calculated, and to reconstruct the percentiles from the Mean and SD, not the actual data. In some circles, this is considered a means of improving the quality of the study results, by "filtering out" those pesky real-word variations.
But, data distilled down to those two numbers makes increasingly bad predictions as you move to the more extreme data. If you assume that penis size may be due to non-random factors, such a genetic determination and selective mating, then it is only to be expected that the true values will deviate strongly from those predicted by a normal distribution given by a Mean and SD as you move toward the extremes. Really, the line graph should not extend below the 5th and above the 95th percentile (or thereabouts), so as not to convey artificial and misleading data.
By way of another example, consider human height. Click here for an example of trying to apply the Normal distribution to the height of women based on the Mean and SD (documented elsewhere as 63.6 and 2.5 inches, respectively), and coming up with impossibly small probabilities for tall women who do in fact exist. Also click the arrow for the authors previous post, where he argues that the Normal distribution is good at approximating human heights; it just breaks apart at the extremes, and way underestimates probability.
The giveaway to how this data was (incorrectly) obtained is seen by clicking the link for the original graph at the bottom of the page. Notice that the curves are perfectly smooth and absolutely perfectly symmetrical. That is, the lower left part of each curve below the 50th percentile is an exact mirror image of the upper right part above the 50th percentile. If you were to replot this data as the probability vs. length, each line on the plot would form a perfect "bell curve," or Gaussian Distribution, aka Normal Distribution. And that is very suspicious, as I shall get to in a moment.
The full explanation follows, but by inspection of the curve, and a knowledge of what real-world data of any human measurement looks like, I can tell you each curve was artificially reconstructed from just two numbers: a Mean and a Standard Deviation. Regardless of what some ignorant teacher may have told you in school, such a reconstructed curve does not, and cannot, accurately represent the actual data at the extremes, except in very limited circumstances. The top and bottom 5% or so of the curve is therefore expected to be completely unreliable, because it does not reflect actual measured data.
For those who have the patience to read, here is a simplified explanation, without using much math...
They may have taught you in school that random distributions accurately follow such a normal distribution. But in fact this is not in general true, and is almost certainly not true for this biological case. (If you believe this to be true, you need to spend more time measuring real things.) The normal distribution is simply a mathematical construction which is easy to manipulate mathematically. Under certain conditions, a measurement which is expected to be affected by the combination of many independent, unrelated, random processes will indeed approach a normal distribution. This is a good assumption to make when trying to estimate the combined effect of, say, random measurement errors. But, in systems were there are non-random causes, or there are factors which make certain variations physically impossible, there is no reason to assume that the distribution will be close to normal. Human mating is a selective process, and as such the results should not be completely random. Further, there are some biological variations (such as mutations) which sometime may accentuate a particular characteristic, but at other times may prove fatal or otherwise unable to propagate. Again, not complete randomness.
Nevertheless, in life sciences, sociology, and anthropometrics (the study of the human body and its dimensions) it has become very customary to simply always assume a normal distribution. One reason for this is that the true distribution may never be known, because determining it may require measuring too many people, or may require measuring people that are not accessible to the study. For example, a great deal of available anthropometric data (other than penis size) comes from measurements made by armies of their enlisted men and women. But clearly people at the extremes of size (very short or extremely tall, very fat, etc.) never actually make it into the army, having been rejected at the recruitment station, so they never get measured and included in the data. It turns out that it is still possible to obtain useful data from the population that remains, but to do so you have to assume a distribution. And it is the normal distribution that is almost always assumed, even though it seldom is completely accurate in describing the data.
If you assume a normal distribution, you only need two numbers to describe the population: the Mean and the Standard Deviation (SD). The Mean is just the average of all the data points, and represents the peak of the bell curve. The SD is calculated from the squares of the difference of each individual data value from the mean, and determines how wide the bell spreads. However, the bell curve obtained in this way is always perfectly symmetrical around the mean, and is really always the same basic shape, except being stretched or compressed in width according to the SD.
It is very important to understand that in general none of the actual real data points lie exactly on the curve. The curve is only a sort of best fit through the data, as defined by the Mean and SD, but does not exactly describe the data. Also note that the curve extends, or extrapolates, beyond the range of available data. When the data does not have true normal distribution, the normal best fit obtained by calculating the Mean and SD tends to be better around the more common values (i.e. values near the Mean), and becomes increasingly poor as you move away from the mean. As you get still further from the mean, into the extreme cases, the actual data often has very little to do with the curve, because the actual factors which determine these extreme cases are not the multiple random factors that lead to a Normal distribution. But since there are very few data points out there, they have little influence on the shape of the curve. Although there are statistical tests to determine how well the Normal distribution actually fits the real data, these tend to be very insensitive to extreme values, and mostly focus on the central values, nearer the Mean.
Despite the fact that the Normal distribution may be a poor fit to actual human data, and that the researchers may only have actually measured some small central part of the population, the data is still quite useful for most purposes. For example, if you are a clothing manufacturer, you do not care about how tall or large the top 2% of the population is, because your reward for the great expense of manufacturing these special additional sizes would be at most a 2% revenue increase, and you would rather walk away from money-losing business. You do, however, care that your standard range of sizes fits perhaps 95% of the population, because that is where you make money. And in a Normal distribution, 95% of the population fits into just plus/minus 2 SD around the mean. So long as the Normal distribution does a reasonable job in predicting approximately how many people are each clothing size over this range, it commercially useful in allowing the manufacturer to plan how many of each size to produce. And in telling armies how may uniforms and boots of each size to buy. Nobody really cares about whether the curve fits the real data out at 3 SD, because there are so few people there (< 1%) that it is better to just ignore them, because you aren't going to make shoes in their size anyway.
So, the Normal distribution has stuck in anthropometric studies, because it might provide a reasonable fit to actual data over the range people care about (the middle 95%, or +/- 2 SD), and no one who uses it really cares about the others. And, by assuming this distribution, instead of having to consult big databases of actual data (a real pain in the ass in the pre-computer era) you only need to know 2 numbers, Mean and SD, and will have a useful, although imperfect, understanding of the part of the population you actually care about. Hence, it has become common to simply discard the actual data after the Mean and SD are calculated, and to reconstruct the percentiles from the Mean and SD, not the actual data. In some circles, this is considered a means of improving the quality of the study results, by "filtering out" those pesky real-word variations.
But, data distilled down to those two numbers makes increasingly bad predictions as you move to the more extreme data. If you assume that penis size may be due to non-random factors, such a genetic determination and selective mating, then it is only to be expected that the true values will deviate strongly from those predicted by a normal distribution given by a Mean and SD as you move toward the extremes. Really, the line graph should not extend below the 5th and above the 95th percentile (or thereabouts), so as not to convey artificial and misleading data.
By way of another example, consider human height. Click here for an example of trying to apply the Normal distribution to the height of women based on the Mean and SD (documented elsewhere as 63.6 and 2.5 inches, respectively), and coming up with impossibly small probabilities for tall women who do in fact exist. Also click the arrow for the authors previous post, where he argues that the Normal distribution is good at approximating human heights; it just breaks apart at the extremes, and way underestimates probability.
Last edited:
Unless you just love writing, Im wondering why you felt it important to present such a personal defense of details regarding your penis. I have to admit, however, that it was both entertaining and we'll written.
I do like writing, but thats not why I responded. The defense is not of my penis. I was called a liar and am defending myself from that. You'll notice that no claim could be made of my size without photographic evidence of my measured penis by the same person who then quoted what he believed my size to be without any photographic evidence. He also made claims about 9 inches which has nothing to do with what I said, all you could possibly glean from my original comment, in which I doubted the validity of the measurements represented, is that I was more than 8.26 inches by my own account.
There is only one person in this world that has an accurate measurement of my individual penis and that is me. To tell me that I am incorrect is absurd when the basis is that photographic evidence doesn't exist when that person then proceeds to tell me the size without photographic evidence.
I don't care about his estimate of my size or anyone else's, only I know and I've chosen to keep it that way. His explanation was that 9 inches cannot exist and that there is no evidence for it, but he also quoted me as not being off this chart which maxes out at 8.26 inches. He did say that I was 7.75 -8 inches, which is only a difference of .26 inches, but he doesn't know any of my other proportions and yet is using my proportions to discern a .25 inch difference, about the width of a fingernail. But I'm seven feet tall, instead of the average 5'10" he probably assumes because that is average and everyone is average, which obviously means that proportionally I may not live up to his expectations of size while in real world measurements I am. I'm not actually 7 feet tall, but I've already been called a liar so I wanted to live up to that for a moment.
I'm not defending the size of my penis, I feel no need to do that and I really don't care. I do care that I was accused of being a liar. I don't lie on this site, elsewhere on the internet, or in the real world to the best of my ability. I do that actively, I prefer not to lie and make an effort not to. So, hopefully, you can understand why I might get a little annoyed when I am accused of lying by someone that doesn't follow the protocols they have decided I am subject to.
