Actually, 6 inches is statistically average. The G spot is difficult to reach and not necessary for orgasm, and a man's dick could never be 5 inches in girth. I don't think a medical degree or looking at dicks all day has helped your ranting skills... they need work.
Yes, but do these medical degrees actually inform you any more about the current subject than you can get from looking into it, or is it just asinine? According to the statistics i have read, there is a correlation between race and size, but a correlation is not a guarantee. In addition, although the _average_ of the sizes is 5, the mean (or most common) lies between 5 and 7.
I like how people with no medical expertise or ability to understand statistics tell others on the internet that they don't think people who actually have these skills are right, and that they need more skills or training. How about you? If they need more skill, then you're a complete rookie so I'd suggest gaining some before criticising others. As a statistician, I tend to believe DeeJay is right. The shit you see on the internet is mostly not strongly supported or inferred correctly from the data. Plus, there is no such thing as correct conclusion in Statistics, because Stats is about taking samples to ESTIMATE the true parameters of a population, parameters that you will never ever be able to calculate precisely. There is a thing called confidence interval, and the bigger the interval, the greater the confidence that you will have a good estimate. If you see a number on a website and a number on another website, this is because samples are different and tests are different and also the estimators might be biased. It's always better to have an interval estimation rather than a point estimation, because one number like 6 doesn't tell you anything (or almost anything).
Do girls really want 5 inches
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Actually, 6 inches is statistically average. The G spot is difficult to reach and not necessary for orgasm, and a man's dick could never be 5 inches in girth. I don't think a medical degree or looking at dicks all day has helped your ranting skills... they need work.
--
TheGypsyTaylor
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
DeeJay27
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I am pretty sure he was talking about circumference not diameter in which case 5" is pretty normal.
Thanks for clarifying you have a micro penis when explaining to us that the G Spot is hard to reach. You just proved my point
--
CheekBuster7
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
insanebotv21
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
No I asked this im bigger than 5
--
DeeJay27
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not you bro. The guy that attempted mocking my medical degrees
--
insanebotv21
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wait, I'm sorry, you have more than one? Where did you get them, the University of phoenix, perhaps?
--
DeeJay27
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Nope, Princeton.. but thanks for being a smart ass. They’re called BSN and a Master’s Degree as a PA. Read about it
--
insanebotv21
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, but do these medical degrees actually inform you any more about the current subject than you can get from looking into it, or is it just asinine? According to the statistics i have read, there is a correlation between race and size, but a correlation is not a guarantee. In addition, although the _average_ of the sizes is 5, the mean (or most common) lies between 5 and 7.
Not having a dick is generally seen as a positive in those who aren't male though, so....
I like how people with no medical expertise or ability to understand statistics tell others on the internet that they don't think people who actually have these skills are right, and that they need more skills or training. How about you? If they need more skill, then you're a complete rookie so I'd suggest gaining some before criticising others. As a statistician, I tend to believe DeeJay is right. The shit you see on the internet is mostly not strongly supported or inferred correctly from the data. Plus, there is no such thing as correct conclusion in Statistics, because Stats is about taking samples to ESTIMATE the true parameters of a population, parameters that you will never ever be able to calculate precisely. There is a thing called confidence interval, and the bigger the interval, the greater the confidence that you will have a good estimate. If you see a number on a website and a number on another website, this is because samples are different and tests are different and also the estimators might be biased. It's always better to have an interval estimation rather than a point estimation, because one number like 6 doesn't tell you anything (or almost anything).