Mean versus Median for those of you interested in statistics

It’d be nice if you had some evidence to back all that up, wouldn’t it?

I doubt there’s much skewness in dick size distribution, but even if there is, I see no reason to assume the data would be right-skewed rather than left-skewed; the obvious floor of 0 doesn’t logically imply right-skewedness. But you do raise a good point. Similarly, knowledge of kurtosis in the data would be important to interpreting standard deviations.

If you check the “average dick size” thread beenthere linked to, you’ll find that at least one of the studies (maybe more?) I linked to reported medians rather than or in addition to means. If my memory serves correctly, the means and medians were similar for studies that reported both.

Mr Happy, what “evidence” to the contrary has ever been presented here?

When stories, or even articles written by former prostitutes or promiscuous gays, are cited, they’re dismissed as “anecdotal.”

When some studies, such as Kinsey, show a different view, their methodology is attacked.

Basically, the only studies/opinions accepted here are those that would suggest that a 5” penis is “massive.”

Like I said, Kinsey is showing that about 70% of men are at least 6” or so. And, wouldn’t you know it? The Kinsey study is attacked the most here. But some obscure study claiming a 5 or 5.5 inch “average” is immediately embraced - and used to further attack Kinsey.

If anecdotal stories are rejected, and if any survey showing more than a 5.5” average is rejected, then how could I possibly ever provide “some evidence to back all that up.”

At last count, 11 peer-reviewed empirical studies using objective third-person measurements in the dick-size thread. None shows an NBP average of 6" or more. If you can find a study that does, I’ll happily add it to the thread.

Anecdotal (adj.) - refers to evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than controlled, clinical studies.

Para, but “anecdotal” does not mean invalid. It simply means that it has not been empirically verified.

Furthermore, I didn’t specify anywhere in my comments “NBP.” I think this is far more relevant with today’s shocking levels of obesity than it was during Kinsey’s era. A fat pad can easily exceed an inch; with a fat guy - much more common today - it can be more than 2 inches. Does that mean that dicks are smaller than we think or that people are fatter than ever? Of course, the latter proposition has been empirically verified.

Allow me to give one more “anecdote.” Last month, I got laid for the first time in ages. The woman was about my age, and divorced for a long time (she was only married briefly). She seemed open & honest, and did not appear to be the type to play mind games.

Anyway, we had sex and it was good for both of us. Later on, when we were talking, she said, “I was a little worried at first.” When I asked why, she said because of my size, and the size of my hands and feet. But she said I was good and she enjoyed herself.

I was playing dumb and asked what she meant. She said she was worried I might be “huge.” I said, “I have no idea about that stuff. Am I average-sized?” She said, “You seem a little bigger than average (at 8+ BP, with 6 1/4+ midshaft & 6 3/4+ base girth!).” Then she added - with seemingly real emotion - “My last boyfriend used to hurt like hell.”

Then, still acting dumb, I asked, “Oh, do you mean he was big.” She widened her eyes, nodded, and said, “O yeah!”

Now, must everybody conclude that she was “full of shit”? Do her comments seem “statistically improbable”, therefore invalid? Will I receive a litany of “women-don’t-know-shit-about-size” posts?

I could not even begin to count how many similar stories I’ve heard of the past 20+ years. Or, like I said, the profusion of 6”+ flaccid cocks that I’ve seen in locker rooms, etc. And I’ve heard so many other similar stories from guys, gals, etc.

How does one confront such anecdotes? Simply dismiss them?

Furthermore, I’m not convinced that we can determine a true average from such a limited sampling. I know you’ve written about these probabilities, but I’m not convinced. Average heights are gained from doctor’s offices, morgues, the military - from tens of millions of samples. The retail industry tracks shoe sizes, clothing, bras, etc. But penis size surveys have sampled a mere drop in the bucket. Some, such as Kinsey, were exclusively white. Others, such as the Israeli study, focused on one small ethnic group. Even the average heights vary greatly throughout the world - by several inches. There is much variation in the human race, and I’m not sure that some statistical model could adequately express this.

I know what these (limited) studies say, but I also cannot ignore what I’ve heard - and sometimes even saw with my own eyes. And some of these studies sample a mere few hundred people. Hell, I’ve probably heard that many stories over the years.

http://whqlibdo c.who.int/hq/19 … &guidelines.pdf

I can’t copy and paste it. Look on page 65 if my link doesn’t take you right to it.

Yes, and in this case, it has been empirically falsified, if you were referring to anecdotes suggesting an NBP average of 6” or more.

If you’re suggesting the average is around 6” BP, I have no argument with you.

Dismiss such experiences as non-representative (i.e., likely an unusual sample), sure, given the studies. My own anecdotal evidence and that of many others on this site completely contradicts yours, for what it’s worth. That’s why we need studies to determine the truth.

You are wrong about sample size being a problem with the studies, but right about generalizability — your sample has to be representative of a particular population to make inferences about that population. But I’m assuming your anecdotes aren’t about penises you saw in Uganda or Thailand or wherever.

Interesting. I haven’t seen the Kinsey data broken up by race before. Good link.

article

This article opens: "Determining the average penis size for a group of males, let alone for men around the world, is more complicated than you might imagine. Unfortunately most information about average penis size comes from popular culture and not science. Let’s start by considering some figures from science.

The results from three studies of penis size where the measurements were taken in a laboratory setting give the following ranges:

Average penis length (flaccid/not erect): from 3.4 inches to 3.7 inches (8.6 cm to 9.3 cm)
Average penis length (erect): from 5.1 inches to 5.7 inches (12.9 cm to 14.5 cm)
Average penis girth (circumference when erect): from 3.5 inches to 3.9 inches (8.8 cm to 10 cm)"

Are we now to believe that average EG is 3.5 to 3.9 inches???

Even the other studies tend to contradict each other…

wikipedia

* 1996 American study (5.08" - 80 men, average age of 54)

* 2000 study (5.35" - 50 Jewish men who’d been evaluated for ED, avg age: 47)

* 2001 Spring Break, Lifestyles (5.9" - 300 guys, college age).

So what does a quick look at the above indicate?

(1) The smallest studies, using the oldest men, report the lowest averages.
(2) The larger study (outnumbering the smaller by 4-6:1), using young men, showed a 6" average.

…scratching my head……… This is what I’ve maintained the average to be. :)

Para, I never used the words “NBP.” Furthermore, when you mention Uganda or Thailand, what are talking about?

If you try to determine a world average, that’s impossible because of the variations. If you’re talking about an American average, are you referring to the Sioux or Mohawks or Cherokees? Oddly enough, you will find Ugandans & Thais in America, no?

Like I said, national height averages vary widely, it would stand to reason that differences exist with genital size as well.

If a woman in an American city is getting laid on a given Friday night, she’s probably most likely to encounter a 6” penis - if we regard that as average. But many women will have riden a much larger on that same night.

And one last point - since you seem to venerate these studies….what good are they when they have so much variation in them? One says 5.08, another 5.35, another 5.9, etc.

In other words, they seem to differ as much as our opinions on size! About a 1 inch margin or so. That’s pretty damn funny.

Not unless you can find the article he’s citing that validates that claim (and even then, you’d have to weigh such an anomolous result against all the other available data). Seems pretty obvious that he should have written “flaccid” there. There’s a reason I link to PubMed for all the studies I cite in the dick size thread.

You can find those three studies and eight others in the dick-size thread, where they have all been discussed ad nauseum. If sample size and youth of subjects is all you care about, by the way, then I guess you’ll have to consider the Italian study looking at 3,300 17-19 year olds to be authoritative above all others (average FSL: 4.9”).

You could be right who knows.

Thanks. That link was in response to Mr. Happy’s post addressing wad.

You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, Wad. And if what you believe is that the average length is about 6” BP in the populations that have been studied (primarily Americans and Europeans, presumably of varied ethnicities) — as suggested by your insistence that you never said NBP — then your belief is in accordance with the preponderance of studies, and I don’t know what we’re arguing about.

Yeah, and that Thai study does align with the Korean one (any others?) showing a smaller average in East Asian countries. Hard to know whether it’s genetics of environment, but the difference was pretty dramatic, at least in the Korean study.

Para,
I do like the way you tend to look for the underlining causes in threads. If I may complement you, a saying a school teacher of mine was fond of: “He who knows how can always have a job. He who knows why can always be his boss.”. Your posts remind me of it.