Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[TraneWreck]

No,you generally have bad arguments because your reasoning is flawed. That's what fallacy is, bad arguments from poor reasoning.

Here: "a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation"

Nice try though.

Quoting the dictionary is a far cry from proper application. I look forward to your next amusing misuse of the term.

 

[Furcifer]

You can't believe simultaneously that both 1/6 are rapists _and_ 1/60 are rapists, much less that one is a condition for the other.

It isn't simultaneous. If they commit 10 it's 1 in 60, if they commit 11 it's 1 in 66 if they commit 14 it's 1 in 84 if they commit 1 it's 1 in 6. It's a conditional statement.

This is sheer nonsense, time to give it up.

 

[Furcifer]

He's just reiterating for 3bodyproblem who seems to be having enormous difficulty in understanding.

There's no difficulty in understanding the author, it's quite clear she converted 1 in 6 sexual assaults in a life time to 1 in 6 men are rapists then said "but if they commit 10 rapes it's 1 in 60".

What I don't understand is the denial. Whether she said it or not it's quite clear what she's done in order to get the numbers she did. It's WRONG. You can't do this. It's not statistically valid in any way. You can't convert sexual assaults into rapists.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm trying to figure out from the article when is it acceptable for me to approach and talk to a woman without her wondering if I'm a rapist. After reading the article and the comments of women in this and other threads, I'm not sure I can. Any suggestions? While you're at it, have you any ideas how I can talk to and maybe even touch a young child without being thought of as a pedophile?

 

[TraneWreck]

There's no difficulty in understanding the author, it's quite clear she converted 1 in 6 sexual assaults in a life time to 1 in 6 men are rapists then said "but if they commit 10 rapes it's 1 in 60".

What I don't understand is the denial. Whether she said it or not it's quite clear what she's done in order to get the numbers she did. It's WRONG. You can't do this. It's not statistically valid in any way. You can't convert sexual assaults into rapists.

Look, I'll try this one more time, mostly because I'm bored at work. I have absolutely no hope that you'll understand it the 95th time around.

1) 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted at some point in their life.
2) The male and female populations are roughly equivalent.
3) The minimum number of men needed to rape those women is 1.
4) The maximum number of men who could rape those women is every man in the country so long as they rape the same 1 out of every 6 women.
5) Neither 4 or 5 is true.
6) If we assume that multiple men rape the same women, then there will be more rapists in relation to the general male population.
7) If we assume each rape victim has a unique rapist, and vice versa, then roughly 1 in 6 men will be rapists.
8) If we assume rapists have more than one victim, there will be fewer rapists in relation to the general male population.
9) To be conservative, the author chose the approach that would yield the most generous number, ie, fewest rapists in relation to the general male population.
10) Thus, if the average rapist has 10 unique female victims, and those victims are not shared with other rapists, then 1 out of every 60 men will be a rapists.
11) That cannot be true, but the error is in favor of a position contrary to the one she is advancing.

Now, it's fair to say that she didn't refine the stat based on situations, but as I said earlier, there are no stats to reflect what percentage of people who harrass women on public transit become sexual assailants. Because a perfect stat wasn't necessary to her point, that men respect women, it's largely a spurious issue.

 

[Uncayimmy]

He's just reiterating for 3bodyproblem who seems to be having enormous difficulty in understanding.

I don't think 3Body has any problem at all understanding it. He's just arguing for a slightly different misuse of statistics than I am. Such are the perils of trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense. It is entirely plausible that she thinks 1 in 6 men are rapists and is using the 10 rapes per rapist number, which she says is a hypothetical, to say that 1 in 60 men rape. She's obviously doing something with the 10 rapes. I gave one theory, and 3B gave another.

Thing is, anybody who defended the 1 in 60 number as being related to the 10 rapes per rapist number was unequivocally wrong. Same goes for any relationship to 1 in 6 women are victims of rape. There is no way in the world the two numbers can be related without faulty assumptions. Hans was 100% wrong when he wrote, "Except she isn't using any faulty interpretation of statistics, she's using a real one for that 1 in 60 figure, and makes it very clear what she means."

Wrong. Period. End of discussion. She's welcome to pull the 1 in 60 number out of her ass, but it was pure conjecture. She's welcome to pull 10 rapes per rapist out of her ass - pure conjecture. But in no way, shape or form can she show a dependency between those numbers or claim to be doing some sort of calculation. Anybody defending her that way is wrong.

3B explained it right here, plain as day (emphasis added):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6324487#post6324487
You can't use the 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted to formulate any number on the "concentration of rapists". Her baseline assumption that there is a direct relation between the number of sexual assaults reported in a survey and the number of rapists is faulty. "If" they commit 10, which we don't know there still isn't a 1 in 60 concentration. "If" they commit 1, which we do know there still isn't a 1 in 6 concentration of rapists.

Your defense of the author's poor use of stats is hilarious. The author doesn't even clarify if these 10 rapes she made up were against different women. She seems to be implying every rapist is a serial rapist, but you can't go on her use of statistics to determine this. I don't know if she realizes it's much more likely that multiple rapes occur by the same person on the same person.

Sorry, PY, but 3B got it. Now, I'll agree that 3B seemed to be giving some sort of object lesson in some of his other posts and was taking certain liberties based on on the author's probable assumptions, but the point is, he got it long before anybody else. I had to go back 8 pages to find it. It then got sidetracked into people defending the indefensible. Of course, they presented things that were "logical" but couldn't see how the author wasn't being logical in the first place.

Can we be done with this now?

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm trying to figure out from the article when is it acceptable for me to approach and talk to a woman without her wondering if I'm a rapist. After reading the article and the comments of women in this and other threads, I'm not sure I can. Any suggestions? While you're at it, have you any ideas how I can talk to and maybe even touch a young child without being thought of as a pedophile?

It's so difficult, what to do, what to do?

As the article specifically discusses, feel free to approach them, but if you're turned down or it's clear she doesn't want to talk, respect that.

If she smiles at you, have at it.

 

[Lyrandar]

In both cases somebody could easily make the case that I am more likely to rape. It's classic confirmation bias. In the first case I demonstrated my willingness, nay, eagerness to control a situation that wasn't mine to control. Anybody who would do that wouldn't think twice about dominating a woman if he felt it was his right, and we all know many men see women as property or objects of conquest. In the second case I demonstrated an uncontrollable temper, which is why I had to leave. What happens when I don't leave? Do I snap? Or maybe I demonstrated manipulative behavior and by walking away I was in some way trying to get her to submit to my will by withholding my attention and presence.

... Any particular reason why you didn't address what I said about motive? I think a lot of the reason that some of the things the article mentions are considered risk factors is because of the motives behind them, as best as they can be determined by someone else. I don't call either of yours risk factors for rape because of the motives I've been able to determine, and I wonder whether the author of that blog post would call them risk factors either.

My point is that this is all just a parlor game. We can look at all sorts of behaviors outside of a sexual situation and invent our own probabilities of what that would mean in the bedroom. Of course, I'm talking about intimate partner rape, not stranger attacks. Professor Yaffle cited some data, but depending on which part you read, the person on the bus pushing a conversation may be more or less likely to be a rapist.

It wouldn't surprise me if those invented probabilities matched, or were at least reasonably close, across some groups of people. The article is probably wrong to present these as the views of all women, but it would not surprise me to learn that a significant subset of women would agree with some of these risk factors.

It's not a comfortable situation to realize that you've got little in the way of predictive power, but that's no excuse for adopting unsound policies. It's certainly an avenue for further research. I wrote another post where I went into detail about behavior I thought was reasonably predictive, and I gave some reasonable scientific basis for it. Unfortunately, the best predictor of unwanted sexual behavior involves engaging in sexual behavior with that person.

The only problem I have with this is that, given the limitations you admit to, the only sound policies I can think of involve exercising less caution. A decision has to be made about whether to treat these people with more or less caution, and the impression I'm getting is that you're calling a lot of the "more caution" options "unsound paranoia". I think that'd result in more unacceptable consequences for those people that used it.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't think 3Body has any problem at all understanding it. He's just arguing for a slightly different misuse of statistics than I am. Such are the perils of trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense. It is entirely plausible that she thinks 1 in 6 men are rapists and is using the 10 rapes per rapist number, which she says is a hypothetical, to say that 1 in 60 men rape. She's obviously doing something with the 10 rapes. I gave one theory, and 3B gave another.

[...]

Can we be done with this now?

The writing is sloppy, but it only requires two assumptions to be read charitably:

1) That there are about as many women as men.

2) That multiple men aren't sexually assaulting the same women to hide their numbers.

The first one is basically true, and the error in the second one runs in favor of the argument that there are fewer rapists in relation to the general population.

That's the point: she made conservative assumptions. They were likely wrong, but each mistake weakens her case, and thus, they're not really that big of a deal.

 

[Furcifer]

By analogy: Person A lives on the 40th floor of a high-rise apartment building. She has a balcony. Her odds of falling to her death are very, very low. Nevertheless, she requested that guard rail be built and that maintenance people test its quality twice a year.

Is this an irrational stance? Her odds of death are very low.

Wow, you really don't get what's going on here do you?

We're saying this woman is essentially living on the 1st floor, not the 40th.

Nobody has argued against caution. It's about whether or not the caution is rational based on her given reasons for exercising caution.

If she says "I want a railing so my dog doesn't get out all the time" it's completely rational.

If she says "I want a railing because I'm worried about falling to my death, the building is 400 feet tall and there's 40 floors so each floor is 10 feet tall and my balcony is 10 feet off the ground" you've got to shake your head.

It's really simple.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's so difficult, what to do, what to do?

As the article specifically discusses, feel free to approach them, but if you're turned down or it's clear she doesn't want to talk, respect that.

If she smiles at you, have at it.

But then why isn't she thinking I'm a potential rapist? See, from the stats it appears that I'm always a potential rapist simply by being male and interested in having interaction with other people, including women.

At what point in a relationship should a woman stop thinking a man is a potential rapist?

 

[TraneWreck]

We're saying this woman is essentially living on the 1st floor, not the 40th.

I realize that. It's one of the many things that makes you wrong. Are you arguing there's zero danger from people who follow women home from bus stops?

If you put a rail on any floor but the ground floor for the purpose of avoiding the small chance of falling, it's a reasonable action.

 

[TraneWreck]

But then why isn't she thinking I'm a potential rapist? See, from the stats it appears that I'm always a potential rapist simply by being male and interested in having interaction with other people, including women.

At what point in a relationship should a woman stop thinking a man is a potential rapist?

Given that most rapes occur in domestic settings, it seems the answer is, "never."

Additionally, the article implies that by respecting women and their decisions, you can easily move yourself out of the "potential rapist" stack. It directly says that approaching women in safe settings will eliminate that background fear.

Your consternation over these triffling matters is bizarre. I think you're trying as hard as you can to have a problem with a very reasonable stance.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Quoting the dictionary is a far cry from proper application. I look forward to your next amusing misuse of the term.

I have been very reluctant to ignore anyone on this forum, but you now join UncaYimmy and HansWossisname on my list. Curious that all three of your are in this thread, getting shown up. I ignore you, I concede, because it's so much easier than the lengthy post I am too tired to write - I work hard for a living, and your lazy sophistry (I think you may confuse it, like jazz, with 'sophistication') is not worth my remaining energy. Rupert Brooke, the poet, has works that might appeal to you - I combed his collected works, and even the poem called 'Hedges phreaked with snow' turns out to be about how in awe he is of women. Take your uncle tom supremacist quasi-religious thinking and shove it.

 

[Furcifer]

While you're at it, have you any ideas how I can talk to and maybe even touch a young child without being thought of as a pedophile?

I wouldn't take the authors suggestion and start by talking to children on the internet.

I've always wondered what would happen if Shel Silverstein showed up at a playground to meet some of his fans unannounced.

 

[Baylor]

2) That multiple men aren't sexually assaulting the same women to hide their numbers.

But she switches from "sexual assault" to "rape" and then pretends they are the same thing.

"One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur."

Rape assumes vaginal penetration with the penis by force. "Sexual assault" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is no metric for it. Hell, I've been "sexually assaulted" dozens of times. If there is no metric then the data are no good. Come on, this blog isn't trying to protect women from sexual assault, she wants to antagonize men and pander to her readers--women who are frustrated and bitter at men.

 

[TraneWreck]

I have been very reluctant to ignore anyone on this forum, but you now join UncaYimmy and HansWossisname on my list. Curious that all three of your are in this thread, getting shown up. I ignore you, I concede, because it's so much easier than the lengthy post I am too tired to write - I work hard for a living, and your lazy sophistry (I think you may confuse it, like jazz, with 'sophistication') is not worth my remaining energy. Rupert Brooke, the poet, has works that might appeal to you - I combed his collected works, and even the poem called 'Hedges phreaked with snow' turns out to be about how in awe he is of women. Take your uncle tom supremacist quasi-religious thinking and shove it.

Haha, ok. I'm sure that post would have been good.

 

[jiggeryqua]

any ideas how I can talk to and maybe even touch a young child without being thought of as a pedophile?

Try not to live in the UK. I might well go and google the source of this, but some time ago I encountered a study that showed the subjects the same photograph of a youngish man playing with a ball and a group of children of both genders and various races, happily, in a sunny field. Ah, the joy of humanity...which is what most europeans reported seeing in the image. But not the British: "Paedophile!".

 

[TraneWreck]

But she switches from "sexual assault" to "rape" and then pretends they are the same thing.

"One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur."

Rape assumes vaginal penetration with the penis by force. "Sexual assault" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There is no metric for it. Hell, I've been "sexually assaulted dozens of times. The data are no good. Come on, this blog isn't trying to protect women from sexual assault, she wants to antagonize men and pander to her reader--women who are frustrated and bitter at men.

Yes, that's a big problem with the article. Even though the actual stats reflect her claim about rapes, the sliding back and forth between sexual assault and rape is confusing, in the least.

 

[Uncayimmy]

1) The odds of a random man on the bus raping a woman is very low, but she's not talking about all men. She's discussing a subset of men who first try to talk to women, then ignore women's wishes to be left alone, then follow them home or wait for them at bus stops.

Please show me where she mentions following her home or waiting at bus stops.

What she does say is, "Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is."

Shortly after that she says, "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?" As further evidence she's talking about attacks, she says, "If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited."

This woman is telling me that she's worried about needing to flee from a stranger on a crowded bus. In case there's any doubt, she does say (with an odd shift to the third person - you both), "On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good."

Look, I think the article was poorly written, not grounded in fact, and not particularly useful. You seem to be reading a different article than I am.