This isn't quite a normal distribution. There's a hard (pardon my pun) minimum that should skew the bell curve a bit
Even so- it's synonymous. The distribution is not so kurtotic that the mean would not be representative of the population. Not being pedantic. Just correct.
Gah! I stand corrected! I was thinking of median because I'm an idiot!
My experience has been that not only do they not lie, more often than not, the guys I've been with under estimate their size. One guy advertised as 7 and he was really 8 plus but didn't want to scare people off or he just was being humble. Several other guys I've been with did not even say what their size was yet they ended up being 7 or 8. I don't know why people find this so hard to believe.
Not a fair statement. Bill contributes some great perspectives. Don't be a hater!
Nah. I've done that before, mostly to distance myself from the stupid neurosis most hetero men have about penis size.
Although I'm only average. I can easily imagine a larger man wanting to avoid scaring women away.
Bill reminds me of mischief-making jokester bisexual men I've known in the past. He is a whiff of nostalgia from my booze-fueled youth.
Not sure if srs or?
All he ever does is post how he wants to suck this and fuck that and overuse exclamation marks.
Here's just out for a laugh. Don't read too much into it.
The thing is that very few people measure their length correctly. The girth is much easier to measure. For the length, most of the scientific studies performed by doctors in a lab will have their patient lay down on their back and then measure non bone pressed vertically with the penis making a right angle with the abdomen. If you measure that way, I'll bet a lot of guys lose an inch from what they have previously measured. The Wessells study measured men this way and found an average length of 5.1 inches.
- EL J,
I'm 6 inches exactly, but i am also obese. my girlfriend says i feel larger than i am. ( we swing) i do feel extra winky that i suppose she feels when i go deep. according to the whole gain an inch for every 35 pounds lost i'm supposed to be like 12 inches if i was fit
Let me throw a statistical monkey wrench into the discussion. The TRUE mean would have to have considered ALL adult males on Earth. Never gonna get that. Therefore, ANY survey mean is actually only a mean of the survey population, which therefore ESTIMATES the true, global mean. If we have the meta data from 15,000 plus measurements, and this shows a mean of 5.16", with a standard deviation of 0.65", then this means that, based on this SD, we can ESTIMATE the TRUE mean falls within the range of 4.51" to 5.81", with a 68.27% level of confidence. Want more confidence in your estimate? For two SDs, the range is 3.86" to 6.46". We can estimate with a 95.45% level of confidence that the mean falls inside this range. Ladies and gentlemen, we will NEVER, NEVER know the true, global mean of dick size. We can only estimate it with greater or lesser accuracy, based on population size of the survey, and assuming consistent measurement technique. My opinion is that this 15,000 meta data is as good as we are ever gonna get. I know all this because I took a class in statistics back in the 80s. We called it "sadistics" at the time. I am sure there are well qualified mathematicians on this site who can state the facts with far greater accuracy than I can, but I think I am right in this. Also, as was well stated earlier, since we have a locked in minimum figure (zero), and an unlimited maximum figure (13"? 18"? Who knows?), then the bell curve will likely skew to the right a bit. My subjective opinion is that at the upper range of SDs (5-6), the data stops representing reality. According to this study, there are only 20-30 men worldwide with dick lengths above 9.06" (6 standard deviations yields less than 0.0000002% on the upper end), and I simply do not believe it. I am not educated enough to say how this would affect the standard deviations. Based on this study, my personal length is 4 SDs above the mean, and my girth is about 2.7 SDs above the mean. This makes me happy.
If you have rain to believe that the sample is not representative, then please explain why you think that. Sample selection is a major consideration in methodology.Let me throw a statistical monkey wrench into the discussion. The TRUE mean would have to have considered ALL adult males on Earth. Never gonna get that. Therefore, ANY survey mean is actually only a mean of the survey population, which therefore ESTIMATES the true, global mean. If we have the meta data from 15,000 plus measurements, and this shows a mean of 5.16", with a standard deviation of 0.65", then this means that, based on this SD, we can ESTIMATE the TRUE mean falls within the range of 4.51" to 5.81", with a 68.27% level of confidence. Want more confidence in your estimate? For two SDs, the range is 3.86" to 6.46". We can estimate with a 95.45% level of confidence that the mean falls inside this range. Ladies and gentlemen, we will NEVER, NEVER know the true, global mean of dick size. We can only estimate it with greater or lesser accuracy, based on population size of the survey, and assuming consistent measurement technique. My opinion is that this 15,000 meta data is as good as we are ever gonna get. I know all this because I took a class in statistics back in the 80s. We called it "sadistics" at the time. I am sure there are well qualified mathematicians on this site who can state the facts with far greater accuracy than I can, but I think I am right in this. Also, as was well stated earlier, since we have a locked in minimum figure (zero), and an unlimited maximum figure (13"? 18"? Who knows?), then the bell curve will likely skew to the right a bit. My subjective opinion is that at the upper range of SDs (5-6), the data stops representing reality. According to this study, there are only 20-30 men worldwide with dick lengths above 9.06" (6 standard deviations yields less than 0.0000002% on the upper end), and I simply do not believe it. I am not educated enough to say how this would affect the standard deviations. Based on this study, my personal length is 4 SDs above the mean, and my girth is about 2.7 SDs above the mean. This makes me happy.
I don't think you can argue that no sample can be representative.
if you google penis size it will tell you that the aberage penis size is 5.5-6 inches long.
He was arguing that unless we measure all the penises in the world, then the sample is not representative. That is not how sample selection works.
I think you throw yourself into the discussion.Let me throw a statistical monkey wrench into the discussion. The TRUE mean would have to have considered ALL adult males on Earth. Never gonna get that. Therefore, ANY survey mean is actually only a mean of the survey population, which therefore ESTIMATES the true, global mean. If we have the meta data from 15,000 plus measurements, and this shows a mean of 5.16", with a standard deviation of 0.65", then this means that, based on this SD, we can ESTIMATE the TRUE mean falls within the range of 4.51" to 5.81", with a 68.27% level of confidence. Want more confidence in your estimate? For two SDs, the range is 3.86" to 6.46". We can estimate with a 95.45% level of confidence that the mean falls inside this range. Ladies and gentlemen, we will NEVER, NEVER know the true, global mean of dick size. We can only estimate it with greater or lesser accuracy, based on population size of the survey, and assuming consistent measurement technique. My opinion is that this 15,000 meta data is as good as we are ever gonna get. I know all this because I took a class in statistics back in the 80s. We called it "sadistics" at the time. I am sure there are well qualified mathematicians on this site who can state the facts with far greater accuracy than I can, but I think I am right in this. Also, as was well stated earlier, since we have a locked in minimum figure (zero), and an unlimited maximum figure (13"? 18"? Who knows?), then the bell curve will likely skew to the right a bit. My subjective opinion is that at the upper range of SDs (5-6), the data stops representing reality. According to this study, there are only 20-30 men worldwide with dick lengths above 9.06" (6 standard deviations yields less than 0.0000002% on the upper end), and I simply do not believe it. I am not educated enough to say how this would affect the standard deviations. Based on this study, my personal length is 4 SDs above the mean, and my girth is about 2.7 SDs above the mean. This makes me happy.
You have to go back to your class. You didn't understand it at all...
The level of confidence is NOT the probability in a normal distribution.
Usually researchers use a level of confidence of 95% ( in experiments in labs even 99% ).
This determines how big the sample size must be of a certain population to calculate the margin of error ( the confidence interval ).
With a sample size of 300 you have a small margin of error for a big population.
That will change only a bit if you increase it to 1000.
The most important factor is the selection of the sample of the population that you want to investigate. (representative)
Last edited:
At.your.cervix
Superior Member
Well that's another reason I'm glad that I was born straight (I mean gay guys have to deal with way too many hassles in our world): most all of the women who I've slept with and have said something about the size of my cock have told me I was exceptionally large.
They are heterosexual women. Most of them will tell you that even if it isn't true in order to protect your fragile male ego.
Not quite, although I see how you would take that meaning from my post. I am not saying it is not representative- I am saying we will never have a perfect understanding. An estimate is still an estimate. Yes, we can try our best to get a representative sample, but this is not perfect. How many hundreds of millions of men worldwide have not been sampled in various studies? I'm willing to guess quite a few. I reiterate my position- the current mean of 5.16" is probably very close to the truth, and I doubt the far right end of the range- there are more big guys than the standard deviations tell us.
Similar threads
