calcSD post, no not the kind you think, NBPEL vs BPEL prevalence.
so, this is NOT yet another post questioning the veracity of calcSD. I hate those, so much so that I wrote a rant about it some time ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gettingbigger/comments/1gzzorl/breaking_calcsd_is_wrong_because_of_mouth/
I do have a question about a seeming inconsistency in the way they calculate the prevalence of a size, though. Given the same far end of the bell curve size, it reports it as being more common for NBPEL than BPEL. I mean with the same raw number, not corresponding measurements.
My BPEL is currently around 8 3/8, let's call it 8.25 for simplicity.
If I go to calcSD and put that in, then select the Western Data Set, it tells me
"99.83%, in a room of 1000, 1 would be bigger".
OK, great.
Now I leave that number the same and change it to NBPEL:
"99.72%, in a room of 1000, 3 would be bigger".
Now, my NBPEL is NOT 8", but that's not the point...that math, doesn't math. Non-bone pressed measurements are always going to be smaller than bone pressed, and a non bone pressed 8" is CERTAINLY more rare than a bone pressed one.
Does anyone know what's going on? Is it just calculating a broader z-score because the data set is smaller for NBPEL? Either way, on the surface, this seems misleading.