The significance of Thunder's Place PE Data stats
Good day fellow penis statistics nerds.
One of my favorite hobbies is to crank out spreadsheets of penis data while I have a traction device attached to myself. As I’ve mentioned before, it was a very happy day when I first found Size’s db on Thunder’s Place. My life has never quite been the same.
This topic has been touched upon from what I can remember reading in the forums, but I don’t think anyone has really taken it into the depth that I think it deserves. If I have missed the thread, please send a link.
I have been away from the forums for awhile and missed Priapologist’s great thread on the Lifestyles penis size study. It was a good analysis and I enjoyed it a lot. Invisible has also been cranking out some fun data posts in his progress thread.
A lot of attention has been paid to the Lifestyles study on this site and elsewhere. I think it is informative and valuable because of the strategies employed by the Ansell company to collect the data. I also find it interesting that we have a study that is 10x the size of the Lifestyles study, but many people here seem to think that it is inferior quality. Just like the venerable Kinsey study, it is self-reported. It certainly would have a higher incidence of sabotage than the Lifestyles study, but is it enough to invalidate the data? Maybe it is my optimistic idealism (and I’m really much more of a cynic), but I think that there are several factors that make this data truly valuable in its own right, and perhaps a little undervalued in our community:
1) Big population sample. More than 8600 entries from over 3700 men. You can drown bad data with good in that kind of sample size.
2) Self-reported. This allows the contributor to work in private (and while sober) to produce his best result, and try as many times as he wants until he gets the best result.
3) Anonymous. “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” … or a guy with a small penis.
4) Self-selected. Contributors were not publicly coerced or encouraged (prizes) to contribute, and most importantly: didn’t opt-out.
5) Good instructions. The site has pretty specific guidelines for measurements.
6) A mission. Sharing the data can improve public awareness of true penis sizes and may theoretically improve our chances of growing - lying is counter-productive.
Now, you can turn all of those points on their head and say:
1) Big population sample. Someone can register with a thousand different email addresses and maliciously flood the db with bad data.
2) Self-reported. Data not acquired by an unbiased 3rd party is always suspect. Motive and error are both factors.
3) Anonymous. There’s no accountability for contributing crap data when you’re anonymous.
4) Self-selected. A small penis is generally seen as undesirable in modern society and people still have an affinity for their online personas, even if they are completely separate from their meatspace embodiment.
5) Good instructions. People can’t even read the forum posting guidelines, much less how to measure properly.
6) A mission. Everyone has an agenda, but that doesn’t mean it is aligned with anyone else’s. Some people have intentionally entered bad data.
My perspective remains: In addition to the my feeling that most of the positive points I mentioned outweigh the corresponding negatives, I think most of the entries are made in good faith and under good conditions - possibly making the TP PE Data superior to any other penis size study available.
I expect to hear some reasonable discussion on these points and more.
Before looking at the data and specifics of the studies, I also want to mention that there isn’t a lot of detail to be seen from the Lifestyles study. The analysis that Priapologist did could only really focus on the extremes of the studies, which have the smallest amount of data and highlight their limited value when compared to the fidelity we have in Thunder’s PE data, which I’ll explore later on.
7 3/4" (+3/4") BPEL x 6 1/4" (+5/16") EG