The following discussion pertains to Section E of the survey in which a number of questions were asked regarding the penis size of two subjects who were photographed while either flaccid or erect.
I was quite impressed with the accuracy with which penis size was estimated. Both Subjects A and B were estimated to be within 0.2" of their actual length (when viewed either flaccid or erect respectively). However, with respect to Subject A, respondents significantly underestimated his erect length based on a view of his flaccid penis, indicating that ones flaccid length is a highly unreliable predictor of erect length.
| |
| |
Surprisingly, the results of the second set of subjects, which are summarized below, were opposite to that of the first. Based on a photograph while flaccid, survey participants successfully predicted "Subject A's" erect penis to be within 2.54mm (0.1") of the actual length. However, with respect to "Subject B", whose erect penis was photographed from the "owner's" perspective, there was a significant underestimation of the correct length. This gives some credence to the popular (but until now, unsubstantiated) belief that one's perception of penis size is dependent upon the angle from which it is viewed.
 |  |
 |
 |
Unexpectedly, the discrepancy between estimated and actual erect lengths was greater for this set of subjects than that found previously. Both Subjects A and B were significantly under or overestimated respectively ("significance" was arbitrarily deemed as being a difference of more than 6.4mm between the estimated and actual length). The fact that Subject A appears to be less erect and is further from the camera, may or may not have contributed to this finding.
Like the previous sets, estimates were independent of age, sexual orientation, number of male sexual partners, self ranked endowment status or contentment status.
 |  |
 |  |