The word correlation vs PCness

[B_superlarge]

Why do so many posters here not finally catch on to what the word correlation involves? I've tried my best to post about some good charts in detail, and talk about what correlation entails and doesn't entail for some time now, and yet the "My so and so is so and so and therefore no correlation can exist" or the "I knew someone that doesn't fit correlation and therefore the correlation can't exist" posts abound like wildfire around here. One would think that ignorance has to give way some time. Unless it's just some hard headed PCness going on, but even then that's no excuse for giving a singular or few examples as proof a correlation is impossible. It doesn't work that way.

Here:
Just because someone smokes and never develops lung cancer doesn't mean there isn't an overall correlation. Charts indicate there is.
correlation: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com
Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.

 

[BigDuder]

people are bad at math

 

[speshk]

Isn't this one of the false arguments lawyers talk about? Post hoc propter ergo hoc ("because a thing is it therefore follows"), or something like that? Anyhow, it ain't clear thinkin', is it?

 

[B_superlarge]

Isn't this one of the false arguments lawyers talk about? Post hoc propter ergo hoc ("because a thing is it therefore follows"), or something like that? Anyhow, it ain't clear thinkin', is it?

Yeah, lawyers for cigarette companies. Lawyers will say whatever it takes. They are not credible to use for this discussion.

 

[viking1]

Possibly because anyone can bend data to suite their purpose. The methods, reasons, and total agenda of those doing the research are all very important as to whether the data should be believed. Most data doesn't meet the criteria for me to accept it without much skepticism...

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

There's lies, damned lies and statistics

Figures can be massaged to prove a correlation between most things. Take your conclusion, look for evidence to support it and most cases can be proved.

 

[playainda336]

Lawyers thrive on technicality.

 

[B_superlarge]

From another thread here's a post of mine that didn't put a dent in things here. Notice that I talked about why the chart can be considered valid (comparing the penis size chart to doctors' penis studies indicates the trustworthiness of the charts in general at Thundersplace). This has no meaning to viking. Viking and Princess reject it hands down just like everyone else who has made their mind up that it just can't be so. Nevermind I show a good reason to trust it. That doesn't get taken into consideration.

"Thundersplace has polled over 1300 of it's members and there is a correlation between height and penis size. The correlation concerning average size is very mild between short and tall guys, as the tall guys have only 1/4" of an inch more in length than short guys, and tall guys have only 1/8" of an inch more in length than average height guys. That's not much (but it is a correlation).

Where the strength of the correlation takes a jump upward is in the outliners on the chart. In other the words, the percentage of tall guys with above average and bigger dicks is a significantly higher percentage than percentage of shorter guys with above average and longer dicks. Also, taller guys have a lower percentage of short dicks, shorter guys have a higher pecentage of short dicks. Guys of average height fall inbetween tall and short guys when it comes to percentage of short and long dicks. The outliner percentages indicate a moderate correlation strength.
Also, another site called sizesurvey has conducted the height poll with 3100 guys and the correlation is also observed. It's somewhat even stronger at sizesurvey, but the strength level at Thundersplace should be considered the one to go by as Thundersplace has proven itself to be very reputable when it comes to penis size measurements as their penis size measurement chart closely matches doctors' penis size studies and that indicates Thundersplace height vs dick size chart can be trusted.

Others looked into indepth. The height vs penis length is a moderate one, the flaccid vs erect is a strong one, the length vs girth is a strong one, and the shoe size vs penis size is a mild one."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some others that didn't put a dent in any naysayer opinions. I'm not including all here:



"LPSG can't really be used to judge what the standard ranges of growing and shower are. Here is some data from a site several months back. I don't know if more has been added since then. Also, at Thundersplace overall the 3" flaccids averaged out to 5.75" erect (grew 2.75") and the 5" flaccids averaged out to 7.25" erect (grew 2.25").
http://www.erectionphotos.com/softH...dGalleryP01.htm

Flaccid Length--------Averaged Erect Length----------------Amount of increase in inches
1.00-1.49---------------------4.71-------------------------------------+3.50
1.5-1.99----------------------4.89-------------------------------------+3.14
2.00-2.49---------------------4.88-------------------------------------+2.63
2.50-2.99---------------------4.92-------------------------------------+2.17
3.00-3.49---------------------6.07-------------------------------------+2.82
3.50-3.99---------------------6.08-------------------------------------+2.33
4.00-4.49---------------------6.69-------------------------------------+2.44
4.50-4.99---------------------7.00-------------------------------------+2.25
5.00-5.49---------------------7.35-------------------------------------+2.10
5.50-5.99---------------------7.80-------------------------------------+2.05
6.00-6.49---------------------na----------------------------------------na
6.50-6.99---------------------9.00-------------------------------------+2.25




The numbers are somewhat unstable, which more data in each range would likely smooth out. The average increase is 2.5 inches in the chart above. I suppose one could use a percentage of gain as a way to determine grower or not. Even so, the data above clearly shows that the belief shorter flaccids/growers are just as big as longer flaccids/showers when erect is a myth even though smaller flaccids tend to grow more (giving the myth some validity)."

-----------------------------------------------------
Length of Penis, Index Finger Correlated in Healthy Young Men



Laurie Barclay, MD

Information from Industry​

Assess clinically focused product information on Medscape.​

• Click Here for Product Infosites -- Information from Industry.

Oct. 3, 2002 —"The lack of standardized metric data and the absence of widely acceptable criteria on the proper size of the external genitalia poses major difficulties in the counseling and/or treatment of young adult men with worries of sexual inadequacy," write Evangelos Spyropoulos, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Naval and Veterans Hospital of Athens, Greece.
Somatometric parameters measured in physically normal men younger than age 40 years included tape measurements of penile dimensions in the flaccid-stretched state (total, shaft, glanular lengths), penile shaft volume calculation, and ultrasonographic testicular volume estimation. These values were tested for correlation with age, height, weight, body mass index, waist/hip ratio, and index finger length.
Mean testicular volume was 16.9 &#177; 4.7 cm3; total penile length, 12.18 &#177; 1.7 cm; penile shaft length, 7.76 &#177; 1.3 cm; glanular length, 4.4 &#177; 0.4 cm; and penile shaft volume, 46.5 &#177; 17.2 cm3. Although total, shaft, and glanular penile length were significantly correlated to index finger length (P<.05) and to penile shaft volume (P<.001), the authors recommend larger-scale studies involving more subjects to confirm this trend.
Urology. 2002;60:485-491
Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Big butt has some correlation with big dick. Not a guarantee, of course.
So if you see a guy who has all of these factors combined : tall, flaccid bulge, confident around women, and has a naturally good size butt, then your odds should be good that he has at least above average if not more."

Can physique and gluteal size predict penile lengt...[West Afr J Med. 2006 Jul-Sep] - PubMed Result
Department of Surgery, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nnewi Campus, Nnewi. jayceeorakwe@yahoo.com
BACKGROUND: In Nigeria, especially among the Igbo tribe, there is a well-held belief that a man's penile size can be predicted from his physique and the size of his buttocks, with people of small physique and flat buttocks likely to have long penile lengths. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study to test the scientific veracity of this traditional and apparently mythical belief. Stretched penile length was measured in 115 men between the ages of 30-65 years and its correlation with the body-mass index and the circumference of the hip as measured around the most prominent points on their buttocks, was statistically determined. RESULT: The mean age of the subjects was 42.30 years (SD = 9.67), with a median of 40 years and a range of 30-65 years. The mean penile length was 13.37 cm with a median of 13 cm and a range of 7.5-19.5 cm. The mean circumference of the body around the buttocks was 96.46 cm (SD = 10.91), median 98 cm, and range 73-122 cm. The body-mass index ranged 17.34-44.44, with the mean at 26.87 (SD = 5.86), and the median 25.53. Linear regression statistics showed no statistically significant correlation between stretched penile length and body-mass index, thus physique. There was a significant direct correlation between penile length and gluteal size. CONCLUSION: The supposed relationship between penile length and gluteal size may have a scientific basis, but contrary to belief, large buttocks is more predictive of longer penile length than small buttocks. Penile length has no relationship to physique.
PMID: 17191423 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

-----------------------------------------------------

"Thundersplace has studied shoe size vs dick size and found that the overall average is only slightly in favor of big feet (about 1/16 of an inch). However, a closer look into the detail reveals a real correlation afterall and it exists in the outliner dick sizes. A shoe size of 12 (USA) and bigger shows twice as likely a chance of having an above average size penis than average size shoes."

-----------------------------------------------------
"Sizesurvey ran a poll of over 3100 guys and the results indicate guys with bigger dicks have a 2 to 1 ratio of more hookups. It's believed the ratio mostly stems from the extra confidence having a big dick can create. However, a small portion of the ratio may come from word of mouth, and a small portion of the ratio from bulge or height (since women tend to find extra height attractive and taller guys have a higher percentage of big dicks). So confidence is probably correlated, but how strong that correlation is remains unclear.
Definitive Penis Size Survey Results"

 

[36DD]

Lawyers thrive on technicality.

I think they thrive on manipulating the interpretation of laws.

 

[viking1]

I don't accept anything from "size survey". It was all "self reported", and therefore means nothing. I can type anything into an internet survey form.
I don't know enough about "thunder's place" to form an opinion, but I'm very skeptical.

I could have come on here and claimed I'm 10x7 and even posted pics to prove it. Most on here wouldn't have even blinked. Just look how many on here have done just that, and have never been questioned...

 

[B_superlarge]

I don't accept anything from "size survey". It was all "self reported", and therefore means nothing. I can type anything into an internet survey form.
I don't know enough about "thunder's place" to form an opinion, but I'm very skeptical.

I could have come on here and claimed I'm 10x7 and even posted pics to prove it. Most on here wouldn't have even blinked. Just look how many on here have done just that, and have never been questioned...

What about PubMed's data listed? What about the urology data listed? You didn't mention those, why? You haven't formed an opinion on Thunder's data? Well, I said Thunder's matches doctors' studies in other charts, so there is a fairly good reason to trust it. What about that? Come on now, let's be honest here how about it- you reject correlations period, no matter what. You are just throwing up excuses to reject, or ignore, everything that implies such even if there is fairly good reason to believe it's credible.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

Word what?

 

[B_superlarge]

Word what?

Not listed here.

 

[Guy-jin]

What about PubMed's data listed? What about the urology data listed? You didn't mention those, why? You haven't formed an opinion on Thunder's data? Well, I said it matches doctors' studies in other charts, so there is a fairly good reason to trust it. What about that? Come on now, less be honest here how about it- you reject correlations period, no matter what. You are just throwing up excuses to reject, or ignore, everything that implies such.

By PubMed's "data listed", you mean, "Can physique and gluteal size predict penile length in adult Nigerian men?" from the West African Journal of Medicine in September, 2006, correct?

PubMed is just a database of all published scientific articles, and has no relationship to the validity of said articles, only that they're supposed to be peer-reviewed, and their quality is completely dependent on the peer-review process of the given journal. In short, being on PubMed does not make the article believable.

I bring this up because that same journal has another citation on PubMed, this one from June, 2007, entitled: "The need to improve the quality of scientific manuscripts published in Nigerian biomedical journals." It would seem even that journal you cited calls into question the validity of articles published from that region.

Sorry, but the points of others stand: None of that data is really reliable or believable. It has nothing to do with "PCness" or a misunderstanding of the word "correlation"; It has to do with the fact that there hasn't been a reliable or believable study on that topic, or at least none quoted here.

 

[B_superlarge]

It has to do with the fact... that there hasn't been a believable study on that topic.

Your post didn't address it well at all. Biased selective post. The "fact" is you said it all with the "believable" word. No amount of evidence or charting or anything would ever be enough for you to believe in the least.

Yesterday a member here PMed me about something, thanking me for defending her in a thread in which posters just couldn't seem to understand what she was trying to get across (and yep it involved math in a way) and other posters couldn't seem to get past their egos far enough to understand her. I'm sure what I had typed didn't do much for swaying their opinions of her post, but at least I tried to type it out so that perhaps someone would understand.

In that PM I told her that she had caught me just in time to thank me since I was about to leave LPSG for good. I told her why, but I won't go into it here. Let's just say that, accept for rare acception, this place is really only useful for idle chit chat and I'm not much into that.

I only decided to post this thread today as a last rant.

Bye.
(I won't respond. Posters can type misinformation to their heart's content.)

 

[dreamer20]

[/quote]

This has no meaning to viking. Viking and Princess reject it hands down just like everyone else who has made their mind up that it just can't be so.

"Thundersplace has polled over 1300 of it's members..."

A Thundersplace poll? If they suspect the information is dubious, so be it.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Its like when a wave of cold temperatures rolls across the area during the winter (like what happens nearly every winter) causing some people to claim: "See? Global Warming theory is all hooey because its cold as hell outside today."

 

[Guy-jin]

Your post didn't address it well at all. Biased selective post. The "fact" is you said it all with the "believable" word. No amount of evidence or charting or anything would ever be enough for you to believe in the least.

My post is actually quite neutral, my friend. In spite of what you say later in your post, I have little doubt you'll return to read my response, so here it is.

There may be a correlation between height and penis size. I will not dispute that possibility, nor do I have any interest in it one way or the other. If it's true, great. If it's false, that's fine too. I literally don't care whatsoever about that fact.

However, there are no studies referenced here that convincingly make a case for it, though. Because of that, I won't accept the correlation as fact.

And your claim that I wouldn't believe something if it were proven is completely off-base. I'm a scientist by profession; I'll believe something if it's proven to me scientifically.

In this case, here's how you might convince me:

-) Get 10,000 men.
-) Use a fabric measuring tape (preferably the same one, but for sanitary reasons, at least the same exact model of tape for every man) to measure from the end of his penis to his pubic bone.
-) Measure their heights on the same scale.
-) Establish that height correlates with penis length.

Do that, and I'll believe it without question.

Take a poll of 1300 random people with literally no controls over the Internet or reference a journal from West Africa that nobody's heard of and that admits on its own is from an area with poor-quality articles and I'll tell you what I said earlier: It's completely unbelievable.