The significance of Thunder's Place PE Data stats

This place is starting to look like the MENSA club.

Not that I have anything against it.

The Lifestyles data actually supports the opposite conclusion, namely that there are more men below one standard deviation from the mean than above it (Invisible - The (statistical) Truth About Cock Size).

Like I said, I mostly focus on the people who claim to have gained or lost too much for the complete duration of their entries. Otherwise, I pretty much leave it alone.

You are right, Invisible. Thanks. I mis-stated my observation, which was meant to say that the Lifestyles study would invalidate our data, but should more actually be that it would disagrees with our data, or as you put it - supports the opposite conclusion.

To expand on my comment that Thunder’s PE Data is much more detailed and useful, here is a table of starting and ending Length (in inches) at an even percentage distribution for: data including contributors that made any entries (inclusive) or more than one entry (exclusive).

—————-inclusive —————— | ———— exclusive ———————

— pop - start L - pop —— end L — pop —- start L - pop —— end L

100.0% — 1.000 - 100.0% — 1.000 - 100.0% — 1.000 - 100.0% — 1.000

_97.5% — 4.750 — 97.5% — 5.000 — 97.5% — 4.800 — 97.5% — 5.250

_95.0% — 5.000 — 95.0% — 5.125 — 95.0% — 5.000 — 95.0% — 5.520

_92.5% — 5.188 — 92.5% — 5.400 — 92.5% — 5.250 — 92.5% — 5.813

_90.0% — 5.300 — 90.0% — 5.500 — 90.0% — 5.300 — 90.0% — 6.000

_87.5% — 5.500 — 87.5% — 5.600 — 87.5% — 5.500 — 87.5% — 6.000

_85.0% — 5.500 — 85.0% — 5.750 — 85.0% — 5.500 — 85.0% — 6.125

_82.5% — 5.500 — 82.5% — 5.875 — 82.5% — 5.500 — 82.5% — 6.250

_80.0% — 5.708 — 80.0% — 6.000 — 80.0% — 5.688 — 80.0% — 6.299

_77.5% — 5.750 — 77.5% — 6.000 — 77.5% — 5.750 — 77.5% — 6.377

_75.0% — 5.800 — 75.0% — 6.000 — 75.0% — 5.750 — 75.0% — 6.500

_72.5% — 5.900 — 72.5% — 6.000 — 72.5% — 5.800 — 72.5% — 6.500

_70.0% — 6.000 — 70.0% — 6.125 — 70.0% — 5.900 — 70.0% — 6.563

_67.5% — 6.000 — 67.5% — 6.250 — 67.5% — 6.000 — 67.5% — 6.688

_65.0% — 6.000 — 65.0% — 6.299 — 65.0% — 6.000 — 65.0% — 6.750

_62.5% — 6.000 — 62.5% — 6.390 — 62.5% — 6.000 — 62.5% — 6.750

_60.0% — 6.063 — 60.0% — 6.500 — 60.0% — 6.000 — 60.0% — 6.800

_57.5% — 6.125 — 57.5% — 6.500 — 57.5% — 6.100 — 57.5% — 6.890

_55.0% — 6.250 — 55.0% — 6.500 — 55.0% — 6.125 — 55.0% — 7.000

_52.5% — 6.250 — 52.5% — 6.614 — 52.5% — 6.250 — 52.5% — 7.000

_50.0% — 6.300 — 50.0% — 6.700 — 50.0% — 6.250 — 50.0% — 7.000

_47.5% — 6.496 — 47.5% — 6.750 — 47.5% — 6.250 — 47.5% — 7.000

_45.0% — 6.500 — 45.0% — 6.750 — 45.0% — 6.375 — 45.0% — 7.100

_42.5% — 6.500 — 42.5% — 6.875 — 42.5% — 6.500 — 42.5% — 7.125

_40.0% — 6.500 — 40.0% — 7.000 — 40.0% — 6.500 — 40.0% — 7.240

_37.5% — 6.600 — 37.5% — 7.000 — 37.5% — 6.500 — 37.5% — 7.250

_35.0% — 6.700 — 35.0% — 7.000 — 35.0% — 6.500 — 35.0% — 7.284

_32.5% — 6.750 — 32.5% — 7.063 — 32.5% — 6.625 — 32.5% — 7.375

_30.0% — 6.750 — 30.0% — 7.125 — 30.0% — 6.750 — 30.0% — 7.500

_27.5% — 6.900 — 27.5% — 7.250 — 27.5% — 6.750 — 27.5% — 7.500

_25.0% — 7.000 — 25.0% — 7.250 — 25.0% — 6.800 — 25.0% — 7.500

_22.5% — 7.000 — 22.5% — 7.375 — 22.5% — 6.900 — 22.5% — 7.600

_20.0% — 7.050 — 20.0% — 7.500 — 20.0% — 7.000 — 20.0% — 7.750

_17.5% — 7.200 — 17.5% — 7.500 — 17.5% — 7.000 — 17.5% — 7.750

_15.0% — 7.250 — 15.0% — 7.625 — 15.0% — 7.125 — 15.0% — 7.870

_12.5% — 7.500 — 12.5% — 7.750 — 12.5% — 7.250 — 12.5% — 8.000

_10.0% — 7.500 — 10.0% — 7.875 — 10.0% — 7.500 — 10.0% — 8.000

__7.5% — 7.750 —- 7.5% — 8.000 —- 7.5% — 7.500 —- 7.5% — 8.250

__5.0% — 7.938 —- 5.0% — 8.250 —- 5.0% — 7.750 —- 5.0% — 8.500

__2.5% — 8.250 —- 2.5% — 8.500 —- 2.5% — 8.000 —- 2.5% — 8.800

__0.0% - 13.000 —- 0.0% - 13.000 —- 0.0% — 9.770 —- 0.0% — 9.999

And attached are two graphs to visualize the data - inclusive and exclusive.

These are common ways I split the data. There are benefits to both, I think, given that you can never really assume why someone only ever made a single entry. Maybe they never tried PE, maybe they never committed to a regular routine, maybe they never grew, maybe they did grow, but never reported it. That doesn’t mean those entries aren’t valuable. You can take any assumption you choose and have data to support it. The inclusive set also gives us a bigger data set when we just want to look at predictions for the general populations.

No matter how invalid my idea is, I often compare my stats to the exclusive ending measurements. In the universe of scenarios, one can speculate that more small guys come to Thunder’s than large ones, which would mean the greater population must be larger than our data. I use that perspective in estimating my size to that prediction of a population. Some might call it a “worst case scenario”. I call it motivation. :-)

Great job !! When I discovered the PE stats I thought about doing something like that, but now there’s very little new to say about. I’m afraid I haven’t read the hole analysis, but I’ll do as soon as possible. An interesting thing to do could be to upload some graphs of the pretty curves, your numbers draw (I’ve tried the length one), and/or a table of percentiles assuming a normal distribution. ‘Cause every one would like to see “where is he” xD. Impressive job anyway

Thank you !

Oh god you’ve done exactly what I was thinking in the time I’ve spent writing it !

I do. They keep talking about deviation. Now I’m not sure but I think they may be referring to the sex life of the dude that runs this place. Hopefully none of them have photographic evidence.

Good work guys!!!

:)

In addition to viewing the population for whatever breakdown you desire (close to your measurements, close to your duration in PE, close to your starting date, etc), you can keep an automatic view of where your measurements fall in comparison to the other contributors.

I use the INDEX and MATCH functions in excel to look up my name and stats for me:

——————-|————— single entries ————

——————-|—- inclusive —-|—- exclusive —

- slipstream | start -|— end -|- start |- end -

sL |— 7.000 | 79.86% | 66.90% | 83.42% | 53.08%

eL |— 7.813 | 94.18% | 89.35% | 96.04% | 84.74%

sC |— 5.938 | 91.63% | 88.04% | 94.35% | 85.93%

eC |— 6.250 | 98.04% | 96.78% | 98.56% | 95.60%

sV |- 19.641 | 91.23% | 84.84% | 93.66% | 78.71%

eV |- 24.285 | 97.48% | 95.49% | 98.30% | 93.66%

Back to my previous post, you can compare your measurements to the population of your choice. In this case, if I was feeling conservative, I would look at my end length (the eL row), and compare it to the exclusive/end column. This shows that I am in the top 84.74% of the TP contributors. If I need a confidence boost, I look at the exclusive start and say “cool, I’m in the top 96.04%. Only 3.9% to go”. Just never mind that works out to 2 or 5 inches, depending on what data you’re talking about. ;-)

You can also use the max measurement for any contributor instead of the last measurement. Some people slip backward a little when they take a break (been there). I tend to use the end because it represents more of what we call “cemented growth” than potentially temporary gains. I’ve found that to be more prevalent for girth than length.

Thanks, glow. There’s a ton to share. Maybe I’ll get my “senior member” wings by the time I’m done with this thread. I guess after 5 years, I feel like I have a lot to get off my chest. :)

Ha No, no. I’m sure plenty of people consider us deviants, but they’re just jealous. ;)

:)

Very nice slipstream! :thumbs:

If it’s any validation for you, the numbers match what I’ve come up with. Looks like, per the 3500+ member poll that we have, 7.5” BPEL puts you in the top 10% :)

*Edit*

Bad math, don’t know what top 10% for EG is yet.

Just curious, those TP numbers are BP, right? I heard elsewhere that Lifestyles was done NBP.

James, the Lifestyles study reads like it was BP, even though they don’t use that terminology.

Sta-kool pointed out the wording that gives this impression in this post.

As I stated above, and others have mentioned, I doubt they pressed nearly as hard as most of us do. What we do is right for consistency’s sake: you can’t go any further than the bone.