I said nothing about anything not seeming right to me..what I said is I superimposed the sigma of 0.8 onto the mean of 5.9 and the numbers make no mathematical sense whatsoever. Do it yourself and you will have to agree. I thought I made it very clear.... using a standard deviation of 0.8 inches for an erect cock normal distribution, the outermost 3 sigma limit is a cock of 8.3 inches, now if you understand that , then you obviously see that 0.8 inches does not give a meaningful result! I do not know how to make it any clearer than that . Mathematically, 0.8 does not work as a standard deviation. Not only does 1.2 work as a standard deviation, but also it provides a meaningful result. Go ahead try the math yourself and you will see the obvious error in the purported Lifestyles's numbers! Surely you know from experience that erect cocks can be larger than 8.3 inches! The math proves the case, not me, I merely did the math and the logic of the math proves the absurdity of their standard deviation. What more can I say? I can go step - by-step, but you say you already understand the statistics of Gaussian curves. I don't think we have a case of one mathematician disagreeing with another, but rather we have a case of a study perhaps quoting a number incorrectly in its results. I could work backwards and determine what the true standard deviation should be for their results, but it really does not matter to me all that much. I am confident that approximately 9 % of erect penises should be expected to be longer than 7.5 inches and that 2.27 % can be expected to exceed 8.3 inches and that 0.13 % of erect penises would be expected to be equal to or greater than 9.6 inches. Very slight variations would occur depending whether one uses 5.9 inches used by Lifestyles or the usually accepted mean of 6.0 inches for mean erect penis length.