Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Furcifer]

Is it at all possible that she used the word "rapist" because she is aware that her reaction to a stranger might be out of proportion to the actual threat? The article isn't talking about how to avoid rape. It is talking about how to avoid making a woman feel threatened by you.

Yah, if you ignore the title "SCHRODINGER'S RAPIST"

Oh and her few paragraphs on "rapist concentration".

And her question: "Will this man rape me?"




(this has come full circle hasn't it? Someone else made this claim earlier silly as it is)

 

[Furcifer]

Your fixation on this is so bizarre. Who has ever even remotely hinted that the threshold for being considered a rapist is commiting 10 rapes?

Just you, just now.

(although somebody brought it up before and it was laughed off as ridiculous)

 

[Furcifer]

Nope, not even cose.

Yah your opinion on this is worthless, you've already failed the test miserably.

Just because it's a conditional statement doesn't mean the statement itself doesn't exist.

As it is the statement is "1 in 6 men are rapsists" IF they each commit 10 rapes THEN 1 in 60 men are rapists.

There's no other way to form the logic statement. Sorry

 

[bookitty]

Yah, if you ignore the title "SCHRODINGER'S RAPIST"

Oh and her few paragraphs on "rapist concentration".

And her question: "Will this man rape me?"




(this has come full circle hasn't it? Someone else made this claim earlier silly as it is)

You think the article is advice to women on how to avoid rape?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yah your opinion on this is worthless, you've already failed the test miserably.

Just because it's a conditional statement doesn't mean the statement itself doesn't exist.

As it is the statement is "1 in 6 men are rapsists" IF they each commit 10 rapes THEN 1 in 60 men are rapists.

There's no other way to form the logic statement. Sorry

Nope. If they AVERAGE 10 rapes, then it's 1 in 60.

That could mean 5 guys that rape one woman and one guy who rapes 55.

All it would take is one rape to be a rapist and the 6 would average 10 rapes a piece.

This is basic, basic stuff.

 

[TraneWreck]

lol, because you don't realize what happens when 1 man is 10 times more likely to commit a rape and how that affects your sample population. If she was going to meet 1 man in her lifetime things would be different.

You are just wrong. I don't know how to explain it on a more basic level.

Redefining "known acquaintances" to include a person you saw on the bus or at the gym is nonsense. (people in school perhaps)

Look at the way it's defined here, just a random example:

By some estimates, over 70% of rape victims know their attackers. The rapist may be a relative, friend, co-worker, date or other acquaintance.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

My example was not just some random person, but someone who began as a stranger and was a known acquaintance.

For all your bellyaching about statistics, you should probably look up the definitions of the terms you're using.

 

[Lyrandar]

Yah your opinion on this is worthless, you've already failed the test miserably.

Just because it's a conditional statement doesn't mean the statement itself doesn't exist.

As it is the statement is "1 in 6 men are rapsists" IF they each commit 10 rapes THEN 1 in 60 men are rapists.

There's no other way to form the logic statement. Sorry

That seems poorly worded to me. If the original assumption was that one in six men are rapists, then the only way to get to the conclusion that one in sixty men are rapists will involve fallacious logic, since 1 in 6 and 1 in 60 cannot both be true (if we assume that the remaining 5 or 59 are not rapists).

I would say something more like "x number of rapes have been committed" (in this case, enough for 1 in 6 women to have been raped once) and then use the average number of rapes per man to determine what proportion of men are rapists. This could be 1 in 6, or it could be 1 in 60, depending on the average rate.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm amazed no one has complained about her characterisation of a tattooed man being considered more likely to be a rapist.

For example, I've been led to believe the quality of the cockroaches tattooed on his face is an important factor to get a handle on before jumping to such rash conclusions.

 

[bookitty]

I'm amazed no one has complained about her characterisation of a tattooed man being considered more likely to be a rapist.

For example, I've been led to believe the quality of the cockroaches tattooed on his face is an important factor to get a handle on before jumping to such rash conclusions.

And I am amazed, shocked I tell you, at the amount of minutia that people seem to focus on. It's almost as if there isn't a message there at all.

 

[Furcifer]

You are just wrong. I don't know how to explain it on a more basic level.

Here I'll explain it to you: This is over a life time, not just a single encounter. "1 in 6 women will be assaulted by the man they meet today"

No, that's wrong. "1 in 6 women will be assaulted in there life time"

You keep saying it's a 1 time event, it isn't PEOPLE MEET PEOPLE EVERY DAY THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.

Look at the way it's defined here, just a random example:
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
My example was not just some random person, but someone who began as a stranger and was a known acquaintance.
For all your bellyaching about statistics, you should probably look up the definitions of the terms you're using.

Wrong.

"In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her."


She's talking about strangers. The fact she's ambiguous in the way she writes is one of the faults that was listed earlier.

Now please stop, this is just silly.

 

[TraneWreck]

Here I'll explain it to you: This is over a life time, not just a single encounter. "1 in 6 women will be assaulted by the man they meet today"

No, that's wrong. "1 in 6 women will be assaulted in there life time"

You keep saying it's a 1 time event, it isn't PEOPLE MEET PEOPLE EVERY DAY THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.

If I flip a coin, what are the odds that it will turn up heads?

If I flip 1,000,000 what are the odds on each flip that it will turn up heads.

The answer is the same for both.

And as for the lifetime thing, I just cited a study where 1 in 20 men admitted to being a rapist. You cannot respond to this so you hope your meandering confusion will rub off on others. We aren't all that hopelessly baffled by simple concepts.

Wrong.

"In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her."

She's talking about strangers. The fact she's ambiguous in the way she writes is one of the faults that was listed earlier.

Now please stop, this is just silly.

She's talking about meeting strangers, then evaluating their behavior as you get to know them more and more. She's talking about stalkers and creepy internet jerks and people who disrespected her on dates. She's not only talking about chance encounters on a bus that directly lead to rape.

It's possible to deal with multiple issues at the same time, but that's neither here nor there.

The fundamental point, that you dodge, is that you have no idea what is meant by "known" when the statistics say, "70% of assailants were known to their victim."

 

[Furcifer]

I would say something more like "x number of rapes have been committed" (in this case, enough for 1 in 6 women to have been raped once) and then use the average number of rapes per man to determine what proportion of men are rapists. This could be 1 in 6, or it could be 1 in 60, depending on the average rate.

We did, 1 in 174, "if" 1 man commits 1 rape in the given year (and 60% go unreported)

If 1 man commits 10 rapes, then it's 1 in 1740.

The stats suggest a majority of "rapists" are about the same age as the women they rape and highschool or college age. Then there's your adult "rapists" who force themselves on on young girls. Then there's the husbands or boyfriends of adult females, then finally there's the complete stranger that rapes women randomly.

Of course there is overlap in some of these groups.

The author doesn't distinguish from guys that may have been overly aggressive in high school and sexually assaulted his girlfriend. In this sense, he may have raped someone, he may be a rapist, but he doesn't have any intention of raping you. Thus in the authors mind your prior behavior may be held against you and every man.

In any event it's a very poor way of determining if a man is a "Schrodinger's Rapist".

 

[TraneWreck]

In any event it's a very poor way of determining if a man is a "Schrodinger's Rapist".

So just a second ago you were (wrongly) up in arms claiming that I forgot to consider that the 1 in 6 number was understood over a lifetime, so now you've gone and repeated your fatally flawed analysis of the statistics forgetting that we're dealing with the rates over a lifetime.

Amazing.

But most amusing is that last line. It may be a poor way of determining if someone is an actual rapist, but every man is a "Schrodinger's rapist' because the very reference is to an unknown entity. Calling someone "Schrodinger's rapist" is not accusing them of rape.

You're so lost on so many issues is honestly getting a little sad.

 

[Furcifer]

If I flip a coin, what are the odds that it will turn up heads?

If I flip 1,000,000 what are the odds on each flip that it will turn up heads.

The answer is the same for both.

And as for the lifetime thing, I just cited a study where 1 in 20 men admitted to being a rapist. You cannot respond to this so you hope your meandering confusion will rub off on others. We aren't all that hopelessly baffled by simple concepts.

Oi vey, 1 in 60 of your coins is 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO COME UP HEADS.

The fundamental point, that you dodge, is that you have no idea what is meant by "known" when the statistics say, "70% of assailants were known to their victim."

"Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her."

Yah, but she means you know them.

This is exactly why the wording in the article was questioned.

 

[TraneWreck]

Oi vey, 1 in 60 of your coins is 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO COME UP HEADS.

You're just never going to understand this, are you.

It's an average, not a statement that each instance carries 10 events.

I know you refuse to answer any question posed to you, for obvious reasons, but this one is really easy:

If the average income for a person in the United States is $50,000, does that mean everyone in the United States has an income of $50,000?

"Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her."

Yah, but she means you know them.

This is exactly why the wording in the article was questioned.

More awesome wrongness. Seriously, how can you miss the point so totally every time you try? At some point you're bound to get something right by chance.

Among the issues discussed in the article is how men go about meeting women and how women respond to those come ons. As I said before, "known" in the rape statistics doesn't mean, "know somebody really well."

A person whom a woman encounters on a bus, riding at the same time for several months, and becomes a casual acquaintance will "know" her assailant for the purpose of the statistics.

Thus, the group of people that the OP article is directed at are not complete strangers who grab and rape out of the total unknown. This happens very rarely, which is why you're obsessed with it. You think it will somehow magically make the odds of a man being a rapist drop, but the article has very little to say about that sort of thing.

I await your next hilarious mistake.

 

[Furcifer]

So just a second ago you were (wrongly) up in arms claiming that I forgot to consider that the 1 in 6 number was understood over a lifetime, so now you've gone and repeated your fatally flawed analysis of the statistics forgetting that we're dealing with the rates over a lifetime.

Oh will you please try and make sense? This doesn't make any sense.

But most amusing is that last line. It may be a poor way of determining if someone is an actual rapist, but every man is a "Schrodinger's rapist' because the very reference is to an unknown entity. Calling someone "Schrodinger's rapist" is not accusing them of rape.

You're so lost on so many issues is honestly getting a little sad.

Dude read the article, her question is quite clear:

"So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

But how does she determine if they will, piss poor statistics.

"I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur"

Yes, let's. Approximately 300 000 rapes last year, 150 000 000 men, or 0.2% of men last year were rapists. If 60% go unreported, approximately 0.45% men last year were rapists.

But no let's try to work out how many rapists there are based on 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime.

And you don't see the problem?

 

[SOdhner]

"Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her."

Yah, but she means you know them.

I think you misunderstood his point:

My example was not just some random person, but someone who began as a stranger and was a known acquaintance.

The person on the bus is, currently, a stranger. The risk assessment that is going on is to help determine if he should be allowed to upgrade to 'acquaintance' and then maybe to something else.

Even if the stranger is a rapist they are not likely to rape her right there on the bus, and in fact there's a chance they won't rape her at all, ever, even if they hang out. If, however, they later rape her once they count as an acquaintance... they still started off as that guy on the bus.

So if the guy on the bus is throwing up red flags, why not choose to keep him at 'stranger' status instead? There are plenty of people who DON'T show those signs of increased risk.

 

[Furcifer]

It's an average, not a statement that each instance carries 10 events.

WTF? You can't average a probability over 1 event. This is the dumbest thing you've written yet. This discussion is indeed a train wreck, thanks for the laugh.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

But I do know a few guys that are pushy and I don't for the life of me know why. The only thing I can guess is it works. There are a sufficient supply of women that enjoy being pursued in what I would term "aggressively". Otherwise the behavior wouldn't be as prevalent as it is. I mean I scratch my head at some of these behaviours, hitting on waitresses half their age to the point of harassment, and yet their bringing them home at the end of the night.

And mind you none of them are rapists. So that's why when you see an article like this you kinda shake your head. It seems rational (aside from the nit picking I've done) and yet to seems contrary to what I've seen others do successfully. (mind you they hit a lot of infield singles, I hit home runs)

How on earth would you know whether any of them are rapists or not? Do you think all rapists tell their mates about it?

Sexually aggressive men are slower to stop the tape on a date rape scenario than non sexually aggressive men especially when alcohol is involved in the scenario.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390351/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

 

[Furcifer]

So if the guy on the bus is throwing up red flags, why not choose to keep him at 'stranger' status instead? There are plenty of people who DON'T show those signs of increased risk.

The main issue is she engages in the fallacy that some stranger that looks less than ideal to her is in any way more of a threat. At least in regards to rape, not just annoying her. But she says she's weighing that against your likelihood of "raping her"

This is exactly why it's perfectly OK with saying "Hey I just don't want to talk to you", but it's slightly more questionable when she say "Are you a potential rapist? Let me evaluate you"

Poor use of stats- check

Engage in fallacy- check

Try to speak for all women- check

Hmmm, might not be the best article I've ever seen on how "women" think. If this is how "women" think there may be a slight problem