Lot theory

Can someone explain me an easier way to determine my LOT?

You’ll find that these days almost no one believes in this theory and most suggest that you ignore it and don’t waste your time.

I hesitate to mention this, but the correlational analyses which supports this theory seems rather simplified. That being said, based on the correlations provided, the theory exists in the early stages of development. I also appreciate that individuals who do not scour large data sets professionally may not feel this way. People’s opinions are generally shaped by their experiences; I get it. But where are we, as it relates to the scientific study of penis enlargement. I have given this significant thought.

Of the many approaches I have seen toward formal theories of PE, this seems to be the most developed so far, in as much as we accept modern interpretations of contending philosophies of science. As many of you so rightfully demand, my criteria for what is science is taken from Sir Karl Popper: evidence. Popper’s demarcation criteria for answering “what is science” is falsifiability. That is, if we have data, let’s test our theory. The results of the theory should be replicable, and it should be possible to discredit the theory.

Some key ideas are: solid data collection (think about the difference in self-reported vs. measured) and a large data set, astute knowledge of existing physiological theories of the pubic region, capacity to retain subjects, and finally, the ability to mine and synthesize data in an unbiased manner during repeated tests. Rarely does a “definitive study” exists in any field where there is not a strong alternate theory supported by solid evidence.

I honestly believe this form of formal testing has not been accomplished prior to now for the following reasons:

1) On the average, members join, fall somewhere in the mean for PE potential and eventually achieve some gains to be proud of. Upon achieving these gains lose interest in obtaining more knowledge. For example, many (though not all) individuals that start 5” long are fairly satisfied when they reach 7.5”, and member who start at 7” are reasonable satisfied if they get to 8.5” -for the cost of a couple homemade devices, some elbow grease, and a couple of years of dedication.
2) Members join, believe existing theories, enjoy no gains for their effort, and eventually quit.
3) Interested member who have the ability to analyze the available data with the scrutiny it deserves cannot make time to do it properly.
4) Interested members who have the time and resources lack knowledge in advanced data analysis
5) Testing specific theories may require asking veteran PEers to alter their exercise habits and routines (if it aint broke, right).

Props to Bib for the attempt at formalization. Mind you, if I turn a blind eye to user comments, pictures, and testimonials, and viewed nothing but the evidence listed in the main thread, I would not be able to endorse its credibility. I am not saying that more evidence may be culled which supports this corpus of work.

I would love to mine the data (.csv) with a scrutinous eye through Stata, but I just do not have the time. Unfortunately, PE has begun dominating my thoughts lately, and I better get to work, lest I gain a huge dick and lose a lucrative career.

If Congress could find it in their hearts to maybe give us PEers an earmarked block grant as part of the new stimulus (pun intended) plan, maybe we could figure out a way to make our stimuli more stimulating?

Haha. Hang Well.

Very well said.

If you fought for funding to research a method to make every guys unit bigger you’d probably have overwhelming support. :)

Not likely. It fails from a anatomical standpoint (I won’t repeat my explanation here, it can easily be found with the search button). Perhaps some members have seen what they believe to be a correlation between the “tug back” at a certain angle and their ability, or inability, to make progress from hanging, but I suspect such cases are coincidental.

I agree.

The point I intended to make seems to be different than your interpretation.

What I intended to express is that I appreciate the scientific merits of LoT theory. The theory examines physical characteristics and theorizes about their properties and potential responses to specific stimuli. The theory is then tested statistically, against recorded data. This gives preliminary results, available for testing with alternate subject pools. Conclusions are drawn and the data gathering mechanism is available for use. That is formalized theory; it just fails because some of the assumptions are false. I realize that this shortcoming discredits the theory. It would be nice if more of our understanding was based on careful evaluations of tests: legitimate, unbiased and recognized studies of the effects of various exercises and preliminary physical characteristics that would better guide PEers on their journey. Since this is a forum for aiding one another, I felt it appropriate to acknowledge the merits of a pioneer, while offering a valid criticism.

I just thought it would be a benefit to everyone to have more data analysis, particularly since data is available. I’d love to do it, but I don’t have the time. If it paid, I would make the time.

I could see me appearing on Oprah, “the Man Who Figured Out to Make Dick’s Bigger, Quicker!”

Ha-ha. Hang Well