USING STATISTICS TO DESCRIBE PENIS SIZE

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Sep 13 2005, 12:19 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Sep 13 2005, 12:19 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>There was no trap to fall into, you are an idiot.

[post=342728]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

This is why I have seen some people on this message board claim you are not a woman. Women, generally, do not argue like this on message boards, and throw insults such as this. Now I wonder if you&#39;re really a woman at all...

<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Sep 13 2005, 12:19 AM
I trust Kinsey&#39;s study more than YOUR personal opinion. His study was as scientific as we get, we don&#39;t have anything better.

[post=342728]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

No, the Kinsey study was NOT as scientific as we get. The various studies where a 2nd party measured penises are as scientific we get - remember, in the Kinsey study men measured themselves on an index card and mailed it in - not scientific AT ALL. That is why every study that measures, instead of relying on self reporting, finds the average penis length to be UNDER 6 inches, not over 6 inches, as in the Kinsey study.

 

[Dorset]

I&#39;m not going to get involved in all the finger pointing and name calling but refer generally to all of the studies mentioned

My job involves a lot of statistics and analysis and I have to say to you all the the phrase "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" is absolutely true. This is because although the figures used in context are of course true they are almost always abused and used incorrectly.

For a start, most statistics have about 1-2% allowance for freak events, figures etc, so to say that a penis girth of 6.4" is one in a million is probably so far off you wouldn&#39;t believe because of factors not taken into account.

What if for example penis size is hereditary, and there is a family out there all with 10"x8" dicks. If these people were not in the study then they might double your 1 in a million figures on there own

This is unrelated but a good example;
Recently in the UK about 30 mothers convicted of killing there babies (2 or more babies) were released from jail. The reason being was the use in the trials of evidence from a doctor who used statistics to prove that the chances of 2 siblings dying from cot death at seperate times was about 1 in a billion.

The national board of statistics heard of this and were outraged, the actual figure was more like 1 in 100 when other factors were brought into play like genetics. They told defence lawyers this and all of the convictions were overturned

The moral is that statistics cannot ever prove that something does not exist, it only indicates the level of possibility

To put it simply, these studies are only true for about 98% of the population

 

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by Dorset@Sep 13 2005, 08:27 AM
What if for example penis size is hereditary...

[post=342794]Quoted post[/post]​

What if, for example, it is not...

Well, if we&#39;re starting with these "what ifs", then no one will EVER believe ANY type of empirical data - it will all be anectdotal evidence and "what if" scenarios&#33;

I keep coming back to the same point, but no one seems to be "getting it": if statistics were SO far off regarding the extremes in the distribution of penis sizes, then why don&#39;t we see that in the distribution of men&#39;s heights?

I went to a "tall person&#39;s support group" type website (http://www.exhite.com/), and the tallest person there was, from what I could tell, 7&#39; even. Using my numbers for penis size, that equals about ~10 inches, or thereabouts.

I would guess that there are a number of men on these boards with 9+"s, and a few with 10+"s, and maybe even one or two with 11+"s - however, the point of my original post was to bring forward the notion that 12+" penises are SO rare, just ONE member of this group seeing even 3 or 4 in a lifetime was outrageous&#33; I could understand if there are maybe 2 guys that saw 2 different guys with 11 or maybe even 12 inches ONCE, but not, as it seems, a yearly occurance.

 

[Dorset]

Originally posted by ElCamino55+Sep 13 2005, 01:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElCamino55 &#064; Sep 13 2005, 01:02 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dorset@Sep 13 2005, 08:27 AM
What if for example penis size is hereditary...

[post=342794]Quoted post[/post]​

What if, for example, it is not...

Well, if we&#39;re starting with these "what ifs", then no one will EVER believe ANY type of empirical data - it will all be anectdotal evidence and "what if" scenarios&#33;

I keep coming back to the same point, but no one seems to be "getting it": if statistics were SO far off regarding the extremes in the distribution of penis sizes, then why don&#39;t we see that in the distribution of men&#39;s heights?

I went to a "tall person&#39;s support group" type website (http://www.exhite.com/), and the tallest person there was, from what I could tell, 7&#39; even. Using my numbers for penis size, that equals about ~10 inches, or thereabouts.

I would guess that there are a number of men on these boards with 9+"s, and a few with 10+"s, and maybe even one or two with 11+"s - however, the point of my original post was to bring forward the notion that 12+" penises are SO rare, just ONE member of this group seeing even 3 or 4 in a lifetime was outrageous&#33; I could understand if there are maybe 2 guys that saw 2 different guys with 11 or maybe even 12 inches ONCE, but not, as it seems, a yearly occurance.

[post=342802]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Yeah, what if... It almost certainly is true though

My point was about statistical study - that is my career and I doubt somehow you&#39;ll be able to beat me in that field&#33;

That is what statistics are used for, they are indicators and that is it, statistics will never be 100% accurate and predicting anything.

Using your example of height, at my school we had a teacher who had 2 kids who went to the school, the boy was about 7 1/2 foot and his sister just over 7 foot. That already screws up the height example of yours, do they not exist? Or more importantly was it pure chance that they were both so tall or was it genetics?

 

[LuckyLuke]

Originally posted by ElCamino55@Sep 9 2005, 06:19 PM
As for circumference, 68% are between 4.1 and 4.9 inches. 95% are between 3.7 and 5.3 inches; and 98% are between 3.3 and 5.7 inches. 1% are smaller than 3.3 inches, and 1% are larger than 5.7 inches. The "one in a million" mark is at 6.4 inches for the larger, and 2.6 inches for the smaller.

I guess this means my dick is "one in a million" for circumference. Funny thing is that I&#39;ve seen two other dicks the same thickness in my lifetime. Given that I live in a city of 3 million people, does that mean that I&#39;ve (statistically speaking) seen all of the 6.5" circumference dicks in Toronto? That doesn&#39;t make sense.

 

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by Dorset@Sep 13 2005, 09:13 AM
Yeah, what if... It almost certainly is true though

My point was about statistical study - that is my career and I doubt somehow you&#39;ll be able to beat me in that field&#33;

That is what statistics are used for, they are indicators and that is it, statistics will never be 100% accurate and predicting anything.

Using your example of height, at my school we had a teacher who had 2 kids who went to the school, the boy was about 7 1/2 foot and his sister just over 7 foot. That already screws up the height example of yours, do they not exist? Or more importantly was it pure chance that they were both so tall or was it genetics?

[post=342808]Quoted post[/post]​

Statistics may be career...however, this falls under the category of "argumentum ad verecundiam", that is "an appeal to authority". One of the "logical fallacies".

I never stated my statistics were 100% accurate. I only stated the studies show that penis size is normally distributed, and the average lies somewhere between 5 and 6 inches, and 9+" penises are VERY VERY VERY rare. I stated "one in a million". It could be as much as, probably, 10"s are "one in a million". However, even if the "one in a million" mark was at 10"s, that would not explain the LARGE number of men claiming to have, or to have seen a LARGE number of 12+" penises.

And your anectdotal evidence of the 7+&#39; siblings does not, in ANY way, "screw up" my example. HOW does it screw up my example? Please, explain.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

There is another problem with &#39;statistics&#39; arrived at through studies. I have seen another one of those self-measured studies where it was specifically stated that claims of length exceeding 10" would not be included because they are obviousky untrue. So in this study, there was no percentage listed for the sizes we&#39;re discussing simply because such a size was not accepted as being a possibility. Such an assumption would certainly skew the results.

 

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by LuckyLuke@Sep 13 2005, 09:30 AM
I guess this means my dick is "one in a million" for circumference. Funny thing is that I&#39;ve seen two other dicks the same thickness in my lifetime. Given that I live in a city of 3 million people, does that mean that I&#39;ve (statistically speaking) seen all of the 6.5" circumference dicks in Toronto? That doesn&#39;t make sense.

[post=342811]Quoted post[/post]​

You very well may have seen all the men with penis circumference of 6.5+"s in Toronto - who&#39;s to say? There could be a few more in the city...who knows?

Why doesn&#39;t that make sense?

Also, did you measure those other men?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ElCamino55@Sep 13 2005, 11:31 AM
This is why I have seen some people on this message board claim you are not a woman. Women, generally, do not argue like this on message boards, and throw insults such as this.

[post=342788]Quoted post[/post]​

:rofl: I assume you got a statistical reference to back that up?

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Sep 13 2005, 09:29 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Sep 13 2005, 09:29 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ElCamino55@Sep 13 2005, 11:31 AM
This is why I have seen some people on this message board claim you are not a woman.  Women, generally, do not argue like this on message boards, and throw insults such as this.

[post=342788]Quoted post[/post]​

:rofl: I assume you got a statistical reference to back that up?

[post=342826]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

It would be interesting, Dr Rock, to see some stats on this. I mentioned this in another post. It seems to me -- and I might be wrong -- that the same 2 or 3 people here post a majority of the insults. Calling someone an idiot or stupid is par for the course for some of our veteran posters. It&#39;s totally unacceptable.

 

[Dorset]

Originally posted by ElCamino55+Sep 13 2005, 02:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElCamino55 &#064; Sep 13 2005, 02:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dorset@Sep 13 2005, 09:13 AM
Yeah, what if... It almost certainly is true though

My point was about statistical study - that is my career and I doubt somehow you&#39;ll be able to beat me in that field&#33;

That is what statistics are used for, they are indicators and that is it, statistics will never be 100% accurate and predicting anything.

Using your example of height, at my school we had a teacher who had 2 kids who went to the school, the boy was about 7 1/2 foot and his sister just over 7 foot. That already screws up the height example of yours, do they not exist? Or more importantly was it pure chance that they were both so tall or was it genetics?

[post=342808]Quoted post[/post]​

Statistics may be career...however, this falls under the category of "argumentum ad verecundiam", that is "an appeal to authority". One of the "logical fallacies".

I never stated my statistics were 100% accurate. I only stated the studies show that penis size is normally distributed, and the average lies somewhere between 5 and 6 inches, and 9+" penises are VERY VERY VERY rare. I stated "one in a million". It could be as much as, probably, 10"s are "one in a million". However, even if the "one in a million" mark was at 10"s, that would not explain the LARGE number of men claiming to have, or to have seen a LARGE number of 12+" penises.

And your anectdotal evidence of the 7+&#39; siblings does not, in ANY way, "screw up" my example. HOW does it screw up my example? Please, explain.

[post=342821]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
It screws up your example regarding height as these two people in my school were those &#39;one in a million&#39; acording to many studies, however they were in fact only 1 in about a thousand in my school - if because of statistics they don&#39;t exist then I think they deserve to be told&#33;

Anyway, the point I was making had nothing to do with whether 12" penises exist or not, to be honest I don&#39;t care, my point put simply was this

statistics on penis size are derived from quantative studys, these are great at identifying trends

The issue of very large penises can only be addressed using qualitative research because the target market is so small that a representative panel will almost certainly miss it

Therefore, accurate records are always going to be impossible but the only way to try and get near the truth is to identify the owners of these large members first and then compare that number to the total population

I work with consumer and TV audience panels - a couple of years ago the Law Channel on cable saw an average rise of about 50% in it&#39;s viewing figures
On closer inspection it was found that this skew was caused by 1 law student who broke his leg and had to stay at home watching TV

This brings me to the point of doublemeatwhopper - most surveys take out the top and bottom 5% to prevent freak figures from skewing the average. This does not have to be mentioned when issuing statistics

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Hung Muscle@Sep 13 2005, 02:34 PM
Calling someone an idiot or stupid is par for the course for some of our veteran posters. It&#39;s totally unacceptable.

[post=342827]Quoted post[/post]​

:shrug: depends on whether the recipients are, indeed, idiots and/or stupid. there&#39;s nothing wrong with calling things as they are.

 

[absinthium]

Originally posted by ElCamino55@Sep 13 2005, 07:31 AM
This is why I have seen some people on this message board claim you are not a woman. Women, generally, do not argue like this on message boards, and throw insults such as this. Now I wonder if you&#39;re really a woman at all...

Yeah, why isn&#39;t that bitch baking you pies instead of insulting you?

Clearly anything that claims to be female and doesn&#39;t recognize your OBVIOUS genius must be lying about the configuration of their genitals.

 

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by Dorset@Sep 13 2005, 10:42 AM
It screws up your example regarding height as these two people in my school were those &#39;one in a million&#39; acording to many studies, however they were in fact only 1 in about a thousand in my school

Anyway, the point I was making had nothing to do with whether 12" penises exist or not, to be honest I don&#39;t care, my point put simply was this

statistics on penis size are derived from quantative studys, these are great at identifying trends

The issue of very large penises can only be addressed using qualitative research because the target market is so small that a representative panel will almost certainly miss it

Therefore, accurate records are always going to be impossible but the only way to try and get near the truth is to identify the owners of these large members first and then compare that number to the total population

I work with consumer and TV audience panels - a couple of years ago the Law Channel on cable saw an average rise of about 50% in it&#39;s viewing figures
On closer inspection it was found that this skew was caused by 1 law student who broke his leg and had to stay at home watching TV

This brings me to the point of doublemeatwhopper - most surveys take out the top and bottom 5% to prevent freak figures from skewing the average. This does not have to be mentioned when issuing statistics

[post=342835]Quoted post[/post]​

I thought you said your career was in statistics? Just because one school has two 7&#39;ers attending doesn&#39;t "screw up" anything - just like the fact the NBA has a dozen 7&#39;ers doesn&#39;t screw up statistics. You MUST look at the general population, not some subset divided by school district, etc.

Most surveys take out the top and bottom 5%? Is this true? No, of course it is NOT true. The ONLINE "Definitive Penis Size Survey" (or whatever it was called) removed some number of responses, but not ALL surveys. This was done in that survey because of the ability to provide fraudulent numbers. When nurses/doctors are doing the measuring, there&#39;s room for human error, sure, but a lot LESS room for fraud. The "self-reporting" Kinsey study showed penis length to be a little over 6 inches - other studies, where doctors/nurses took the measurements, show average penis length to be UNDER 6 inches. Which do you trust? Self reporting, or a 2nd party measuring?

The study by Lifestyles Condoms in Cancun, Mexico provided an average penis length of 5.7 inches, with 200 of the 300 measured between ~5 and ~6 inches. That would fit quite nicely with all the other studies - average somewhere around 5.5"s, SD around 0.5"s, normally distributed.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Sep 13 2005, 09:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Sep 13 2005, 09:49 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Hung Muscle@Sep 13 2005, 02:34 PM
Calling someone an idiot or stupid is par for the course for some of our veteran posters.  It&#39;s totally unacceptable.

[post=342827]Quoted post[/post]​

:shrug: depends on whether the recipients are, indeed, idiots and/or stupid. there&#39;s nothing wrong with calling things as they are.

[post=342838]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

It&#39;s just so uncreative. If you&#39;re going to insult someone at least do it more innovatively. Name-calling is banal. Plus, these same people insult so many other posters here that the effectiveness of their anger-ridden diatribes wear off after a while, at least until another group of new posters come on board who aren&#39;t used to it.

If you disagree with someone&#39;s ideas here, argue your point and stand your ground. If you&#39;re so irritated with them, move to another thread -- or get something else to do with your time (like anger management therapy)....

 

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Sep 13 2005, 10:49 AM
:shrug: depends on whether the recipients are, indeed, idiots and/or stupid. there&#39;s nothing wrong with calling things as they are.

[post=342838]Quoted post[/post]​

You will note that I have not called anyone an idiot or stupid.

When people start calling other people "idiots" or "stupid", that only proves the person throwing the insults are LOSING the argument, and all they have to fall back on are personal attacks.

I have laid out some numbers based on REAL LIFE research and measurements, and the only arguments I have gotten have been from anectdotal evidence and personal attacks.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

And Camino, I have no idea if you&#39;re right or wrong -- although I tend to agree with most of what you argued here -- but I do admire you for holding your ground against the angry mob. Good for you.

 

[EFH33]

The truth of the matter is until you get ever male in the world to drop trou and measure, accurately, the length, girth, and weight of their penis you&#39;re never going to have a true average size. I think we men just need to be happy we have a penis that works so we can feel sexual pleasure, procreate, and urinate naturally and healthily. :hi:

 

[ElCamino55]

Originally posted by Hung Muscle@Sep 13 2005, 11:04 AM
And Camino, I have no idea if you&#39;re right or wrong -- although I tend to agree with most of what you argued here -- but I do admire you for holding your ground against the angry mob. Good for you.

[post=342846]Quoted post[/post]​

Thanks, Muscle.

I have no idea if I&#39;m right or wrong either, as I haven&#39;t measured EVERY man on Earth.

However, I DO know that these numbers are somewhat close.

I think it would be safe to say the average penis length is between 5 and 6 inches, and "one in a million" are between 8.5 and 9.5 inches long.

 

[Dorset]

Originally posted by ElCamino55+Sep 13 2005, 03:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ElCamino55 &#064; Sep 13 2005, 03:14 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Hung Muscle@Sep 13 2005, 11:04 AM
And Camino, I have no idea if you&#39;re right or wrong -- although I tend to agree with most of what you argued here -- but I do admire you for holding your ground against the angry mob.  Good for you.

[post=342846]Quoted post[/post]​

Thanks, Muscle.

I have no idea if I&#39;m right or wrong either, as I haven&#39;t measured EVERY man on Earth.

However, I DO know that these numbers are somewhat close.

I think it would be safe to say the average penis length is between 5 and 6 inches, and "one in a million" are between 8.5 and 9.5 inches long.

[post=342848]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I hope I am not being included in the &#39;angry mob&#39; category as I am not angry and definately do not want to give the impression that I am being insulting as that was not my intention and I have nothing against anyone who has posted here.
I am simply trying to gravitate the figures being quoted and make it known that it is unusual to use surveys of this kind to determine the occurence rate of a minority group.
As I said before, none of the survey used are qualitative so can only be used to pick average trends and nothing else