When there are more than 200 countries in the world, the countries where we can find reliable large-scale research are probably no more than 30, whereas This type of website/data claims to have enough data to be divided into different groups by continent, even including Sub-Saharan Africa, which people don't know much about, but some persons still stick to it since these data, that even take the experience comes from Medieval(when people still thought that the huge genitals were a symbol of uncivilized and barbaric, and vilify blacks by this impression) erotic novels into account, cater to their preferences and benefits, there is no need to imply them something wrong that they should know then correct by themselves, not everyone is decent enough, especially some people know how to behave but sabotage the whole conversation on purpose just out of their own prejudice in an Indecent way, that they were aware of, given that polite dialog with a sober brain just can not do it.
My opinion about a cliche problem: size of asian tools
- Thread starter Waldeinsamkeit
- Start date
BuckyD
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Posts
- 7,196
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 92,778
- Points
- 518
- Location
- pacific north west
- Sexuality
- 69% Gay, 31% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I really like the penis on the last dude in your post - looks really promising!
I have really observed this as well
It's a stereotype but to my personal experience It's mostly true
elchippe
Superior Member
Dude you are almost 7 inches girth and probably 8 inches long, , you talk like if you are average, You are bigger than the next 1000 dudes, OF COURSE you are going to find EVERY Chinese girl tighter, We are going to find tighter EVERY single ethnicity in this blue planet, I even had a Latina girl that said outright "No, that is not going inside me", where the average is 6inches+.Yes it was a bad attempt to harmonize with the OP and using my one off boyfriend-of-a-girlfriend is definitely a very small sample size - especially for anecdotal data - and citing my experience with other women in China is, at worst, contradictory to what I was trying to convey since if Asian guys are larger as per the girlfriend then he was right - except - that I said the Chinese women were tighter (implying tighter than “others”) negated my attempt to support. Ramblings of a deranged mind! Mea culpa!
SteelSaurus
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Posts
- 126
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 207
- Points
- 198
- Location
- Hamilton Parish (Bermuda)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I think one of the fallacies about famine/poverty being the basis behind below average penis size in Asian demographics, is that you have similar famine/poverty situations in African and Caribbean (i.e. black) demographics, and yet there's evidence that they have an above average penis size.
As opposed to questionarie type survey's (where guys will likely lie and pad the figures around their size), look at condom developement where they took actual measurements to try and gauge 'average' sizes.
In Japan and China, the 'medium' condom length is on average 10.9cm (4.3") and 5.2cm (2") in width.
Whereas in America, a condom length is around 7.25" in length and 2" in width.
Meanwhile, a 'magnum' (marketed towards black males) is around 7.75" in length and 2.25" in width.
As opposed to questionarie type survey's (where guys will likely lie and pad the figures around their size), look at condom developement where they took actual measurements to try and gauge 'average' sizes.
In Japan and China, the 'medium' condom length is on average 10.9cm (4.3") and 5.2cm (2") in width.
Whereas in America, a condom length is around 7.25" in length and 2" in width.
Meanwhile, a 'magnum' (marketed towards black males) is around 7.75" in length and 2.25" in width.
Oh, personal experience, according to the personal experience I have seen here, I think a lot of "personal experience" people believe only what they believe, learning a lot from themselves, regardless of the reality, even if I have put the relevant materials ahead, and they called "lengthy" out of their own "behavior manners". with prejudice..
As I said earlier, sharing experience does not solve any problem, on the contrary, it will make the argument more, and makes it also more boring, though in fact I also discussed when I was talking about sample size, if a person wants to have enough credibility in his experience for public discussion instead of personal talks, what are the approximate sample size numbers, and how much the errors are and how we can utilize the experience roughly.
Honestly, if I used my experience in China to start this thread by "sharing experience", instead of discussing it as it is now by scientific materials though many people may indeed feel it less interesting, what's the point of this thread?
If the personal experience way is the way used to solve the problem in the end, it may be more boring than talking about the cultural differences among countries with political correctness.
I actually responded to this question before. , We don't see Africans doing better if we consider scientific report data, not prejudice or media impressions.
Unfortunately, Africa, which you think is equally poor, does not have the same good data as you saying at all, I have already sent African data before, and actually, they are very difficult to find, or do you want to take African-Americans into account, whose genes group has a great amount of Caucasian gene, maybe less than 10% of African ones. , If you really want to do that, for being fair instead of the double standard, then we should think of Latino as Asian, given that there is at least 10% Asian blood in most countries there, and some countries even reach 50%..
It is certainly good not to consider self-reporting, although we have discussed the possible errors of self-reporting in a sense before so that we can roughly utilize those self-reported data. But if you don't want to trust data from self-reports, why do you want to trust data from commercial companies? ,I mentioned earlier that there is some racist data still spreading today, but in fact, many condom data are just them covering a new face.
Aren't the two sets of data similar
International penis sizes compared
https://www.condomsales.com.au/blog/which-countries-have-the-b?ggest-penis-size/
The chief scientist of Ajinomoto Company issued a special report to prove that MSG in food doesn't affect the human brain, but Chinese restaurant syndrome (just out of the purpose that to attract more customers, a large amount of MSG was poured into food by restaurant owners) still often appears, doesn't it?
The more critical question is that the report from the researchers has been sent before, Why talk about condom data when there are reports from researchers, Especially maybe they're just some racist data, not to mention they can't get rid of that it is commercial company research, Even if he follows the formal scientific procedure, he may change his conclusion because of his interest.
,We really don't need to think about business reports if we have large-scale (so it is reliable since data manipulation out of Interest-related purpose in this case becomes extremely difficult, and there are fewer systematic errors) studies to look at them.
I kind of follow your line of thought although the way it’s written is somewhat contradictory - at least how I read it.
However, I don’t think that condom companies are in the business of being racist. Heuristically, the data would have to be fairly reliable because they are in business to make a profit and if the condoms don’t fit - ie too large or too small - then the product doesn’t sell and no sales = no profit (UNLESS there is no competition to do it better). I would suggest that in all markets - even China - that there is competition and just like the larger part of us who have to buy the more boutique condoms for fit and comfort, so would guys with average sized dicks if the companies made them for racially fictitious small dicks.
Lastly the discussion of famine was provided by the original poster and it’s not unexpected that someone could also respond with comparison of different countries with the same economic conditions but perhaps different results. I read somewhere that the most interesting number is all the dick size studies would be the mode instead of average.
Conclusion - the data from some studies seems to support the concept that Asians have smaller cocks. But as you point out the data sets may not be reliable for many reasons. I think the folks at CalcSD did by far the best job of sifting through the various studies and data using only those which had trustworthy data collection methodologies all collected by professionals, no ED problems and not self reported. Using their data the 50th percentile “average” is 5.28 x 4.53” for “eastern” dicks and 5.79 x 4.74 for “western” dicks. You can read their data methodologies and links to the exact studies used for each regional group on their website calcsd.info.
So the question begs - IF CalcSD is to be trusted, is .5” in length and .2” in girth statistically significant to make a claim that “eastern” is smaller than “western”? Put another way, if a 50th percentile eastern dick is considered a 27th and 38th percentile in length and girth respectively compared to western data is that enough to say they are smaller or is it just people being biased?
,The word is contradictory or not deponds on if it is logical, not based on your own assertion..
First, even if these condom companies do not have racist behavior, though honestly there is a high probability that they will do it as part of a cultural propaganda strategy.
(promoted by the US government since they put culture, politics, and economy in an equally important strategic position even in their public speech. Whether it is Snowden's secret file or some reports released by the CIA itself, it shows that they have done this kind of thing, And what we are talking about here is an extension of this kind of thing.)
And, as I said before, even if it doesn't have this kind of racist behavior, actually it's in his own interest as a business company. Just as the porn industry caters to people's stereotypes and goes further to find bigger blacks. I also mentioned the example of Ajinomoto, whose chief scientist released a report saying that it does not affect the human brain by taking sodium glutamate, also known as monosodium glutamate(MSG), and proved it by some biochemistry or biology techniques, but the final result is Chinese food syndrome exists, which is caused by taking a lot of MSG orally through food.
I think I should make it more clear that the purpose of the Ajinomoto example is to tell people that the report issued by a commercial company may still have problems with its conclusions even if it conforms to formal even strict scientific procedures.
The core question, which can actually be put more bluntly, is what kind of reports should we believe when we have large reports from researchers, scientific reports, that conform to formal even strict scientific procedures and methodology, issued by authors from commercial companies, and market research from commercial companies.
The answer to this question is, of course, that we would rather believe the report issued by scientific researchers, and the interests of this scientific author are irrelevant.
, so we don't need to discuss whether they have racist behavior at all, even if it is more likely to have. As long as it is a business report, the problem will always exist, and as long as there is a better large-scale scientific no-interest report, it is more credible. In fact, I can point out another aspect of thinking about commercial companies, Of course, the company has internal data about their company, but the data they disclose in public must be true? If the data they disclose are true, then their balance sheet is completely reliable, so what third-party review do we need? Then why do you need so many regulations? ,Isn't the balance sheet more relevant to the vital interests of enterprises than the so-called market research results? , Companies certainly need the results of market research to guide them on how to sell, but they don't have to disclose the real one. Even if they publish a wrong result for the public, it won't really affect their business.
In the end, if there are large-scale scientific researches, and there is no relevant interests, then it is believable, there is no need to consider commercial reports.
Secondly, most reports offer averages, where do you see the reports that they will offer mode? And considering that the length gap between penises may be between millimeters, If the difference between the modes is not big enough, I.e. the gap between the first mode, the second mode, the third mode, and so on are not big enough, they don't make much more sense than averages.
As for this part of economic development, I actually pointed out that it may be easier to do, just by comparing the developed countries and the relatively developed not-so-well countries in Europe. The example of Italy was given earlier, You can compare it with the report of the British study..
, And again, I have sent the black data. In fact, apart from pornography and media propaganda, we don't really have valid data to show that black people are bigger, , On the contrary, because the economic development in Africa is not particularly good today, their situation is actually worse than imagined. I have to say that I have responded to this type of rebuttal for the third time. The person who says this argument every time didn't really prove that there are different results in the same economic situation, but every time he thinks this is the truth. Wouldn't it be possible for each of us to assert that a unicorn exists without proving it? Since there is no different situation in a similar economic situation, Then this type of rebuttals are actually invalid.
Thirdly, Unfortunately, I thought calcsd's data was reliable at first, until I actually looked at the dataset, only after I found out that the report samples they chose were too small. ,Actually, that's why I talked about it in the first post, but I never talked about it again.
I don't know why the report is not displayed, but the home page of this journal is displayed..
A small sample was selected, although the number did not differ from that of white people
The sample size is only 88..
The sample is a little small, only 800 though are barely usable, and it Is composed of four parts, each of which is only 200, 200 is definitely not enough. In this way., people are deceived into thinking that the sample size is enough, but The error level is determined by the sample size of a single sample, not by the sample size finally pieced together, that is to say, even if it is a report of 800, Its error level still stays at the error corresponding to 200 sample sizes. The level of error did not change, although the average would make the average they worked out more credible.
It is also worth adding that their data were collected from patients rather than healthy volunteers, Although they did exclude patients with a range of conditions such as Peroni's disease or acquired injuries to limit the error.
There are only over 100 people in the diabetic and non-diabetic groups, ,This sample is also too small
The sample size is only 239 and 59 people, and this sample is too small.
The sample size is only 104 people, and its data is not far from the average provided by the British report
,Oh, sample of 80 people. This is even less than the above
The sample sizes are 111 and 32, too small
The sample size of 248 patients is a bit small, although it is not much different from the British report
The sample size of 309 is too small
, sample size 201 sample size is too small
,The credibility of all the above reports is doubtful because of the small sample.
.This is the Italian study I discussed above, with a result of 12.5cm for average
and
- Son 1999
It's a pity that this is all their report
Their Westerners average, come from a data set where only a large report is credible, but they actually get a stereotype number, far exceeding the conclusion of the reliable report. ,
And the data sets they use for what they call the Eastern and Middle Eastern averages are not even credible without a large report.
,The data of this website is not credible, and I have told you why it is not credible, so I don't need to answer the non-existent question you assumed later.
Since you especially want to pretend to be professional, say that all those reports are not self-measuring and are done by professionals, following the "right" methodology. I think I need to give you a little more professional advice as some hints to make you have an open insted of stubborn mind: , Have you considered that there is a correspondence between stretching lengths and erectile lengths, I have previously shared a report on this relationship between the two, and in the final the author has also pointed out the approximate force(450g) with which the measurement is accurate by measuring when patients are lying down. Can you guarantee that the your so-called "scientific" reports you are talking about can guarantee this? Although I have mentioned they are small-sampled, no matter what they do, they will not make their reports credible. Another problem that should be mentioned is that erection by injecting E1 can indeed promote firm erection to measure but It may lead to such a good state that many people can't achieve it every day every time. If you want to be an expert so much, Have you considered these things?
Don't expect others to be friendly with you when you are unfriendly.
look at what has been written before(,I've already provided large studies of whites and large studies of Asians). Your sarcasm doesn't give your argument any more persuasiveness,but it does show that you are arrogant. I hope you can communicate in a more friendly tone next time.
Bro - you win. I don’t have the time to read and respond to each claim and question you have made. It feels
Like a lot of rambling. It’s like tying a case up in court with all sorts of motions. But I am still not convinced of your argument and think the paranoia of condoms and government conspiracy is a bit far fetched.
CalcSD has only selected data collected by professionals using reliable and repeatable methodology. You are discounting their findings and making claims without support (eg - no matter what they do, they will not make their report reliable.) The accumulated data of smaller studies then becomes a metadata and provides a better picture. I would rather rely on a smaller data set that has repeatable methodologies than a larger dataset that would prove difficult to control - whatever the repeatable methodologies are. Repeatable is key. Just my leaning.
As I said before, there is way more to this than this thread can address.
Like a lot of rambling. It’s like tying a case up in court with all sorts of motions. But I am still not convinced of your argument and think the paranoia of condoms and government conspiracy is a bit far fetched.
CalcSD has only selected data collected by professionals using reliable and repeatable methodology. You are discounting their findings and making claims without support (eg - no matter what they do, they will not make their report reliable.) The accumulated data of smaller studies then becomes a metadata and provides a better picture. I would rather rely on a smaller data set that has repeatable methodologies than a larger dataset that would prove difficult to control - whatever the repeatable methodologies are. Repeatable is key. Just my leaning.
As I said before, there is way more to this than this thread can address.
- I think I have to stress once again that I don't have an attitude towards this business report by whether they are racially biased, but because they are business reports, Because the interests are related, they will bias the results if they want though they may not for every times.
- As I said in the original paragraph, it doesn't really matter whether there is a conspiracy or not, I just casually said that.
- My work is about biomedicine, , The literature in this field is often influenced by the source of funds, which affects the methodology and even the final conclusion. , And I actually said in the last reply that I don't doubt them because of whether they are racist, but that they are business reports so that I will doubt with neutrality attitude not judging with subjective attitude.
- What I said was that no matter what they did, they couldn't make this report credible, in context because it was really too difficult to operate if it was limited to a small sample (which means There is a large enough inevitable system error, if the original sample size is not changed). Of course, it isn't easy to make people completely believe.
- In fact, there is no report that does not adopt a repeatable methodology, and everyone adopts a similar methodology, so there is no need to emphasize whose method is better, especially when these reports are actually produced in 20 or 30 years, and there is not much methodological change in these days.
- Repeatability actually has nothing direct(though indirect) to do with the sample size, Repeatability requires different researchers to use the same method in different situations, and finally get similar results.
- .The best example of this thing may be the example of the Rhode Island story from Greek prophecy. (There was a Greek who claimed that he could jump to the sky, and then when asked if he would show how he jumped, he said he would need to go to Rhode Island to do so, The best answer to this question is that This is Rhode Island. If you can jump, jump here...) He had to be in a place called Rhode Island to achieve his result, which is of course non-repeatable, which violates repeatability.
- If the Russians investigate a drug for a disease, they end up claiming that a drug will have a strong effect on the disease, but there are no similar reports in the United States and Europe with the same drug and the same methodology, are we going to take the averaging strategy and say that it actually just doesn't work very well but works, or that it doesn't work at all? Of course, we're going to take the latter.
- The noticing thing is the difference in the results between these small reports, which is too big compared with the large reports ones' when they(both large studies and small studies) adopt the same completely consistent methodology and have the same research situations. When the results reported by the large reports are surprisingly consistent with each other, we certainly adopt the results of the big reports with higher repeatability.
- Repeatability in scientific methods is not limited to the methodologies used but also includes results.
- The focus of reading scientific reports is not to say whether the scientific report is unscientific, or just not scientific enough, but when all the contradictory reports exist, read them and extract what is useful and valuable, though they may look contradictory at first, then contemplate on them then give a comprehensive and consistent explanation/theory/results for them, instead of clinging to something that may support your argument, whereas the opposite materials also exist..
- ,I have posted the discussion about repeatability above, small reports are easily manipulated, In contrast to large reports. Since they have a huge sample size, it is difficult for people to manipulate, even if its publisher, or the funder of this study, wants to change this result especially when the results of the reports are not particularly satisfactory to them. ., Not to mention that large reports have fewer systematic errors than small reports except for the accidental errors just discussed before. From the very beginning, the large reports can avoid discussing whether it is manipulated or not, which is a very complicated technical issue and is also difficult to answer, especially for people who are not in this professional area(even professionals sometimes are not particularly aware of some subdivisions or technical details.) Choosing a large report can avoid such a dilemma and directly lead us to the credible conclusions we want easily.
- Small studies are only preliminary investigations made when conditions may not be particularly convenient in various aspects.
- ,I think I need to add to the concept of randomness that I mentioned earlier. , Since Fisher created statistics at the beginning of the 20th century, the randomization method is still the core methodology of statistics. In Fisher's own case, he was studying how soil conditions affect annual yields, trying to get an estimate, but there are a lot of factors to consider, such as pH, rainfall, rainfall frequency, and so on, The situation of each piece of soil is also different, But as long as the land area is large enough, these factors will get a random average in the real world, so that we can ignore them directly to achieve our conclusion. The core of the method is to use a large enough sample size so that every factor we consider, whether we are aware of it or not, can be taken into account systematically as a whole without considering all kinds of complicated and even difficult technical details. Therefore, randomization is still one of the most important means for us to know the world
- We usually don't doubt that our scientific colleagues will consider unscientific factors when making reports, and don't doubt that they will try their best to minimize those unscientific factors, But their research is limited to the methodology of his time., , Just as the report on how sugar caused people inflammation actually came from 70 or 80 years ago, it seemed great at that time, but now we know that there is a big flaw in this report that ignoring trace elements. However, people at that time, didn't even find all the b vitamins, and it was even more difficult for them to find and realize the importance of trace elements. The experimental animals are on a diet that lacks various vitamins and trace elements for a long time(At the same time, it is. not the real situation of human life at all), so sugar is fatal to them. The point of this example is to show that perhaps the scientific researcher at that time did make their endeavor., but his report will still look flawed in the future.
- Not because I am very obsessed with large sample reports, but because a large number of these reports can solve errors that we are aware of or unaware of.
- , The reason why I send a long reply is not to try to use long text to bully others so that others can't read it completely or even refute it. It is not my purpose, but to make my thinking clearer to others, especially when my views are not so natural or easily make sense to others. What I want to do is to discuss rather than share my point of view, so I will try my best to show the thinking process of my point of view more completely.
- , At the same time, repeating my points can better increase the readability of a long passage for readers, , Increasing readability is my purpose, not to emphasize how right I am, no...I prefer to make my writing direct for sure, instead of emphasizing what I am thinking or what I want to get, but in that case, For most people who have a little difficulty reading long passages, that makes it more difficult for them to read this. , This is a temporary strategy I made with considering readability.
L
2) large studies with poor controls = large errors. I am sorry that repeatable was not clear. I should have said repeatable controls not just repeatable as it is not clear. Studies with repeatable results are more reliable than a study with poorly designed controls repeated over and over. And that’s why a lot of the larger studies you refer are not used in calcSD. The population studied or the means used gather the data have large potential of error and/or inability to produce the same repeatable results. 1,000,000 guys whittling with a knife can’t reliably produce a part made with a CNC. I’ll take the 100 parts made with a CNC than the 1mm whittled by hand. So while quantity can smooth errors, it can only do so if the variables are removed.
3) It is not that data doesn’t exists but is it reliable? Your argument is that if the numbers are large enough the errors are removed. But as you state they CAN correct error but it’s not a guarantee.
That is ONLY TRUE IF AND ONLY IF the variable controls meet or exceed the smaller studies controls. 10MM self measured dicks are not going to be as reliable as 10k professionally, systematically measured dicks. So numbers in and of themselves are not the solution. I think we can agree Large numbers with quality data collection is the solution.
4) CalcSD just tried the best they could with the plethora of trash studies that exist and rightfully so weeded them out.
3) We disagree on readability. Your writing is very difficult to follow. Many of your writings you have numerous contradictions and too many analogies to clearly convey your concepts.
I tried to be polite and you attacked me saying I was sarcastic and arrogant. That has no place in a thread trying to ferret out ideas, concepts and truths.
1) either the companies are scheming against Asian dick perceptions or they aren’t. They want a profit. Not to dominate the world with their pants down. Why are you so hung up in accusing the companies of dickism?!? Is it because it destroys your argument? You claim to want to used data but clearly use emotion and hyperbole to attack companies whose information doesn’t fit your agenda. Just drop the ruse it does nothing to build credibility in the discussion - your fixation actually does the opposite and undermines your credibility.
2) large studies with poor controls = large errors. I am sorry that repeatable was not clear. I should have said repeatable controls not just repeatable as it is not clear. Studies with repeatable results are more reliable than a study with poorly designed controls repeated over and over. And that’s why a lot of the larger studies you refer are not used in calcSD. The population studied or the means used gather the data have large potential of error and/or inability to produce the same repeatable results. 1,000,000 guys whittling with a knife can’t reliably produce a part made with a CNC. I’ll take the 100 parts made with a CNC than the 1mm whittled by hand. So while quantity can smooth errors, it can only do so if the variables are removed.
3) It is not that data doesn’t exists but is it reliable? Your argument is that if the numbers are large enough the errors are removed. But as you state they CAN correct error but it’s not a guarantee.
That is ONLY TRUE IF AND ONLY IF the variable controls meet or exceed the smaller studies controls. 10MM self measured dicks are not going to be as reliable as 10k professionally, systematically measured dicks. So numbers in and of themselves are not the solution. I think we can agree Large numbers with quality data collection is the solution.
4) CalcSD just tried the best they could with the plethora of trash studies that exist and rightfully so weeded them out.
3) We disagree on readability. Your writing is very difficult to follow. Many of your writings you have numerous contradictions and too many analogies to clearly convey your concepts.
I tried to be polite and you attacked me saying I was sarcastic and arrogant. That has no place in a thread trying to ferret out ideas, concepts and truths.
Repeatability - Wikipedia
Shouldn't you take a good look at the large-scale research I sent first, whether there is a scientific methodology fault, instead of directly accusing them of not having professional measurements or even self-reports? "I think we can agree Large numbers with quality data collection is the solution."
Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males - PubMed.
I repeat I don't care if they are biased about penis size, which is hard to prove true, hard to prove wrong, and not the most important. , The most important part is they are commercial companies, so they have a conflict of interest, so theirs have systematic errors. This is not limited to the condom companies, , When the publisher of the report has a conflict of interest, it is worth considering to be skeptical about the whole research even they claim not to change the results for real no matter what studies they are
Well, if you're going to proclaim large studies that are not well controlled, then please prove why they are not well controlled, especially when they use the same method used in the small studies that you mentioned in calcsd and perform measurement by the professionals as well instead of self-reports.
, If I point out that their chosen report is flawed and out of a scientific aspect, not my own assertion, and you still believe that their chosen report must be the best, Then you are not resorting to scientific methods, but resorting to authority, You believe their report just because they are professionals.
(Something that doesn't matter at all:
By the way, can't you see that the report I took comes from the National Institutes of Health? ? If we want to resort to the authority, can the National Institutes of Health from the perspective of authority, not compare with the calcsd? Even though it is one of the largest medical databases in the world? )
My view is that sample size will reduce the error, I didn't say it would disappear. The error will still exist, but it will become smaller and smaller, so small that we can probably ignore it, , I posted an estimate of this error earlier, The error brought by the sample of 300 people is 12.76%(close to half an inch), not to mention calcsd reports mentioned in their dataset, only a few barely reached 300, Basically, there are only 100 people around with an error about 22.10%(more than 1 inches). Although 3000 is not the best, at least the error is reduced to 4.03% (about 0.5 centimeter). Your well-controlled small report has an error level that can reach close to 1/5 from the sample factor alone. Do you think it is well-controlled? If you want to talk about errors, you should talk about all errors, And they include but are not limited to systematic errors caused by sample size, system errors caused by measurement methods, random errors caused by conflicts of interest, and other errors caused by various random factors. Even if the errors of other items are not so big, they can be ignored, but an error of about 1/5 of the results has been caused. How can you ignore it?
Sample Size Calculator
You need to prove where these contradictions are in my words, instead of keeping saying there are contradictions all the time and not pointing out them. Do you try to say that analogies don't make people understand better about abstract ideas? Doesn't the standpoint (that commercial companies will change research results for their own benefit) sound a bit hollow when I don't give the example of the Ajinomoto Company?
When I said you were arrogant and sarcastic, it was your reply to your second reply here, not your current reply, and you did it in that reply.
by"
I mean it was my reply to your third reply here in this thread, not your current reply, and you did it in that reply.
"
I mean it was my reply to your third reply here in this thread, not your current reply, and you did it in that reply.
I have lived in Asia for a while (both South East Asia and East Asia) and I have never met anyone that was noticeably small: everyone was mostly average-sized, and a big portion of them were quite thick (one guy in particular was abnormally big, I just couldn't physically take it in....even sucking him was challenging, I kinda felt bad about it, it must have been hard for him, he even didn't wear any underwear as they making him uncomfortable)
Your best written post so far.
1) meta data studies are an acceptable way to combine high data collection integrity but smaller studies into a meta study. The combining eliminates the small sample size errors. It is up to the meta data study to determine the selection criteria. In CalcSD it seems they selected only data of non-ED professionally gathered data and eliminated any studies of self measure data. It seems the ED reason obvious and the self measured data rejected for reporting bias. It doesn’t seem like you agree with the reason for elimination. We can agree to disagree.
2). I didn’t say large studies are not well controlled. What I said was loosely controlled large studies are not reliable just because they are large.
3) I would assert, in this context, that self measured studies are not reliable. I think they could produce some interesting numbers but not reliable. They would include too much bias. There is a reason double blind studies are the highest standard although clearly not possible in this situation. So eliminating self measured and ED numbers, in my opinion make a better data set with a reasonable sample size.
4) “The most important part is they are commercial companies, so they have a conflict of interest, so theirs have systematic errors” - I can understand how this can be held true to pharma whose tests are the only way they can get government approval but don’t see how there is a conflict of interest in condoms. For condom companies to be successful consumers need to like their product. Perhaps some cultures like a tighter fit and therefore want a smaller condom. I don’t think it’s foul play or a conflict of interests as asserted above.
I said essentially the same thing based on my experiences in China. however was shot down due to sample size bias. lol. And the difference is somewhere in the 1/2” range max in length and .2” in girth. I am not sure the naked eye could detect the difference.
