New size study -vs- Thunders Place Data

I suspect by now most of us have seen the “new” penis size study touted in the news last week: http://onlineli brary.wiley.com … /bju.13010/epdf

It is not really a new study, it is a literature review putting together data from several previously published reports and producing two new graphs of “average” length and girth. The pros and cons of the BJUI study are discussed in other threads but sufice it to say that the TP community are skeptical that their data reflects actual average size. I would love to believe BJUI data because it puts the averages at the low end of the accepted range, but I’m not convinced.

My purpose here is to present a comparison of the BJUI study data vs the data collected here by TP members.
(Reminder: If you haven’t already, be sure to enter your own measurements into the TP database)

The Thunder’s Place database of penis size measurements is a fantastic resource for investigating the topic. It holds over 18000 individual measurements from over 9000 individuals.
The dataset is not perfect and there are several obvious biases built in to the TP data.
1: Self selection. Not just any guy will join TP and post his penis measurements. While you could argue that TP may attract guys of average or small size who want to increase their dimension, I think it is reasonable to assume that the TP data over-represents large penises.
2: Self measurement. Suffice it to say; occasionally men have been known to overstate the size of their members.
3: Rounding error. The fact that many of the measurements are rounded to the nearest quarter or eighth inch means they are not as precise as we might like. And there is a natural tendency to round up rather than down.

The strength of the dataset is its large size. I created a simple program to filter the data to capture just the “best” measurements from the dataset.
First, I am only interested in people who have entered more than one set of measurements. Right away that eliminates much of the ‘noise’.
Since we are interested in “normal” penis size, I want to get people’s starting measurements, not their measurements after PE. To do this I take their first two entries in the database and do a quick check to make sure they are not wildly different, then average them together with added weight on the first entry.
To counteract rounding error I arbitrarily subtract a random amount up to 1/8”. This also keeps the data from clumping at the inch and half inch marks.

Using this filtered data I have plotted a new line on the BJUI graphs representing the TP member measurements.

Sorry, the graphs in the first post are not as good a resolution as I would have liked.

Better resolution graphs here.

Sorry WrightMan, I appreciate your contribute but I have to remove those attachements. Will pm you.

OK… here are the graphs again.

:up:

Good Job.

Its like with every self reported study. Tendency to be at the upper end of the average range.
Factors as you mentioned, rounding etc.

What is interesting with most studies is that the distribution % is almost always identical.
90-95% are within a narrow average range. 2-5% are very small or very big.
Its pretty simple: You cant find a certain number for the average penis size of humanity.
The distribution within a narrow average range is too high!

But still you could find a good amount of much bigger then average. You can easily find 1000’s of huge dicks on the net. But thats only cause we are some billion people. The huge dicks dont all live in your neighbourhood. And even if they dont necessarily fuck 10 girls a week. Could be the local clergy man is the one with the huge dick.

The possible factors that influences the measurment are too many in the case of erect Penis size.
BPFSL is a bit easier and BPEL and BPFSL are often within the same distance to each other.

As I posted in the other thread on this study, the erect length and girth numbers for this study are very misleading. The ‘15,000’ patients that the study claims were almost exclusively flaccid measurements. If that weren’t enough, the length and girth measurements had a huge Indian bias.

The study had a grand total of 692 erect measurements with 301 coming from a single Indian study.

There were only 381 erect girth measurements with 301 (almost 80%.) coming from a single Indian study.

The study is completely useless with respect to Caucasians or even world averages. Take a glance at some of the Indian studies against some of the Caucasian studies. Indians are significantly smaller. You can confirm this significance by running an ANOVA test on the two data sets.

marinera - Penis Size: The True Average

Wait. So, say I am about 6” length, that means I am only 35% percentile, which means I am small as fuck? Surely this can’t be? Did I read this right? Wtf. Someone please say this ain’t so!

calm down man. its not and even if with some weeks or months you would be easily above 50%.

on thunders self reported statistics. Which is done by crazy man tugging on their penises thinking 1mm makes a difference to a pussy.

Its far from an unbiased sample size and the subject of this thread. rounding up etc which wont happen in a scientific study.

Not every member writes down their stats either, bigger guys (or bullshitters) could be more prone to do so.

You appear to have misplaced your shift key, dicker, and your apostrophe key. What’s wrong with your keyboard?

And is this BPEL or NBPEL? I am probably 6.6” BPEL, which is still small as fuck in this study, 55%? Really? I felt fine before because I knew I was a fair bit above average, but this has destroyed my whole belief (I have always gone off this chart http://mraverage.com/stats.htm ). I’m worthless (actually, 5% more than worthless, apparently).

And that’s not the worst yet! According to a new study, 27% of men have three balls.

Well if you consider one man out of three has a big testicle in place of a fully functional brain, it sounds possible.