Height vs. Length vs. Girth Project

Height: 73.62”

Pre pe bpel: 7.00”

Pre pe middle eg: 4.88”

Gimli,

It’s very generous of you to enter all these data manually! For various reasons, as I mention in this thread, and as you refer to in your first post here, past polls on this topic using ranges for data entry have been rather useless.

I have a little stats knowledge, too, and in my opinion you won’t need more than about 100 subjects to draw some strong conclusions. Already, based on your preliminary analysis, it seems clear that the height-length correlation is stronger than many of us had supposed (although, as I point out with a scatterplot here, even a ~0.50 correlation is not too helpful for making predictions about an individual man).

It’s surprising that so far the girth-height correlation is much weaker than the length-height correlation. Do the factors that determine skeletal growth affect penile growth in one dimension more than the other, and if so, how? One of the guys with a medical background might provide some speculations here. Although I guess we should wait for more data to come in first :)

My only concern about the data from this poll is that a third variable — inclination to exaggerate, consciously or unconsciously — will inevitably magnify any height-length, height-girth, or, for that matter, length-girth correlations found. That is, some guys are more prone than others to self-serving exaggerations, and those who are high on this dimension are likely to report not only greater heights but also longer and thicker penises, while those who are low on this dimension are likely to report shorter heights and shorter and thinner penises, and this spurious source of systematic covariation among the variables of interest in this study could artificially increase correlation coefficients. My guess, though (and there’s no real way to address this issue except by guessing, unfortunately), is that the correlation coefficients of interest will not be affected dramatically by this problem.

By the way, alongside your next analysis, would you mind posting your raw data in a spreadsheet attachment?

Another potential problem with the data is restriction of range : guys with naturally huge dicks may be less likely to seek PE (and thus be on a site like this one), while those with small dicks may be shy about posting their stats publicly in a thread like this. (Send a PM to Gimli, guys!)

Restriction of range would work to attenuate any actual correlations in a study like this one, so this problem may help to balance out the third-variable issue noted above.

Height: 73.6

EL: 7”

EG: 5”

weight: 176 lb

Earlier in this thread, after 25 votes, this was posted by Gimli:

Correlation Between Length and Girth: 0.514644
Correlation Between Height and Length: 0.573097
Correlation Between Height and Girth: 0.128882

Additionally, here is a thread in which I previously posted (#9 post in the thread) my findings of the relationship between length and girth.
Is there a correlation between length and girth

Bach to Gimli’s post, of course 25 votes isn’t much to rely on, but it appears that the percentages are already starting to indicate the various correlation strengths. In the thread I linked to I had compared over 600 pre pe sizes from the database here and the correlation between length and girth was very evident. Even if the theory that those numbers are influenced by some who tend to fib on all their measurements I can’t see that much correlation being created. In such a case the correlation would need to be adjusted by weakening it’s relationship by some degree, but not to the point of almost wiping it out. Also, on the flip side it seems to me that same argument can be presented about those with smaller sizes, some of which might have a tendency to tack on a bit in order to feel better about it, and I’ve never read that taken that into consideration by those who present the exaggeration theory.

What is quite curious to me is that the correlation between length and height and the correlation between length and girth are showing up as 4x the correlation between height and girth. In other words:

If (rounded off):
correlation between height and girth = 0.5
correlation between length and girth = 0.5
correlation between height and girth = 0.125

Then what does that tell us?

It seems to me it may indicate that the correlation between height and girth is a byproduct of the correlation between height and length. That height correlates directly with length, length correlates directly with girth, but the percentage is different between height and girth because girth correlates directly with the length and not the height. The correlation shown between height and girth is weaker because of the indirect connection.

46 participants so far, four more and I’ll release some more of my findings.

Para-Goomba you bring up some great points. I agree with you about the exageration factor, but alas, there is nothing that can be done to stop that in a self-reporting survey. I personally think it is hilarious when they do that, but whatever, to each their own. As far as participant size, it would be awesome if we could somehow hit 1000, I know that some polls have gone that high, so if people are wanting to participate at least it isn’t impossible. I have no problem posting a data sheet of all my data when I post my findings (I would just have to figure out how to do that :) ).

Beenthere, I am glad you too saw that in the correlation. How A is similar to B, B is similar to C, but A is not similar to C. Just one of the many reasons why I want to get as much data as possible.

Should someone want to participate in the survey, but not want to post openly, feel free to PM me with your stats. Nowhere in my data are usernames recorded, and I will not release to anyone what usernames have/haven’t participated. Thanks in advance to all those who participate, I greatly appreciate it as I am interested in doing this study, but it requires the help of you guys (and you have been helping immensely)!

Gimli

Height: 180cm

Pre PE length BP: 5.3 (just in the middle of 5 and 5.5 :) )

Pre PE girth: 4.5

Height: 68”
BPEL: 6.25”
Girth: 5”
(Pre PE = post PE as I’ve not seen any gains)

Good luck with the study! Out of curiosity (which was piqued by another thread on this site), have other studies which have measured penis length used BPEL or NBPEL? I read somewhere that the UCSF study used BPEL (measured “from pubic bone” to tip of penis), but since I only read this in one place I’m not sure if it’s true.

Not sure to be honest. I would guess most studies use NBPEL, as BPEL is kind of a ‘higher thinking’ approach familiar with the PE community :) .

Hey gimli, it might be worth taking in some stats from this site: http://www.erec tionphotos.com/ … rames_index.htm

Often the heights are listed aswell as their size. Though few give their girth.

Muggles,

Check this thread: Penis Size: The True Average

I listed "BP" or "NBP" there only if the abstract (or full text, if I had access) specified whether the measurement included fat pad. As you can see, some medical studies have used BP, others have not.

Gimli,

I forgot to mention my starting stats: height 69.5", BPEL 7.5", EG 6.0".

Beenthere,

You must be happy to finally have some fairly definitive evidence coming about this issue (and it appears it will likely support your longstanding minority opinion on the matter) :) The data from this survey will be a lot more reliable, I think, than that from the “definitive penis survey” site, which probably attracted a lot of jokers.

:) Actually though, I considered the height vs weenie poll here fairly definitive evidence anyway, despite it’s being in ranges. Sure, I would have preferred that it had been setup with more divisions, but honestly it still baffles me somewhat that just because it’s not in enough divisions that that is somehow considered to make it invalid. I fail to see how it would, as the percentages in that poll have a well defined slope to them, and therefore to me that is evidence enough to validate the poll anyhow. I’m not surprised at all at the way the correlations are going in this thread. I’m mainly curious to see if there is something uncovered that couldn’t show up in the other poll, since this thread is setup in more divisions. For instance, could there somehow be a point(s) at which height reverses it correlation with length?

My main interest in this thread is really concerning what the volume will be in relation to height. It should be somewhere inbetween what the correlation of height to length is, and what height to girth is, but exactly where isn’t clear to me because I’m not so sure just yet that I can assume it will be the midpoint between those correlations. Anyway, even though at Thunder’s it’s always length and girth getting all the gossip, it’s the volume that is the practical impression maker. Wad has a recent thread he started about volume and how that is what women are mostly sensing. That is what I’m mainly look forward to in this thread -the volume results. The other results (length, girth) I’m interested in just from a fine tuning standpoint.

I don’t think 100 votes will create exact percentages. I believe many more votes may be needed.

The problem is that there’s basically no robust way to analyze those data statistically. You’re right that the level of specificity per se should not inhibit statistical analysis (e.g., specifying dick size or height to one decimal vs. two vs. three, etc…), but the particular way that the poll used ranges, especially those "greater than/less than x" categories), made strong analysis impossible.

Yes, that’s something cool about Gimli’s project: the raw data can be analyzed for non-linear trends (e.g., a relationship reversal of the type you mention). I hadn’t really thought about that, but you’re right.

Depends how narrow a confidence interval we want and at what level of confidence. This is how you compute confidence intervals for correlation coefficients. 1000 would certainly be much better than 100, I agree, but people overestimate the need for huge sample sizes with these sorts of things, partly because of the misunderstanding that one needs a larger sample to make inferences about larger populations (as opposed to smaller populations). (This page explains well why this is a misunderstanding.)

***

Guys: Keep entering your data here!!