Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why don't you address the argument that I presented rather than call the side of the argument that I am on strange? I never argued to keep talking to someone for ever when they clearly dont want to talk, I argued that there are no absolutes and that some people will warm up and enjoy the interaction. Do you disagree?

What harm is caused by asking someone with earplugs reading the bible what there favorite passage is? They were annoyed for a few seconds? For 1 min? Oh the horror, such behavior is the bane of society.

This strikes me as a horribly antisocial attitude, if you genuinely think it's ok to annoy others for your own boredom or entertainment. Not to mention that placing someone else's annoyance that clearly as unimportant compared to your getting less bored, is pretty much the definition of disrespect.

And, yes, such antisocial attitudes kinda are the bane of civilized society. If we all started having some entitlement delusion that it's ok to annoy someone every time we feel bored, I don't think it would make for a more pleasant life for everyone. Because then a bunch of people around would also think it's ok to annoy _you_ for some quick entertainment, and it will be in ways _you_ don't like.

And at any rate, for my own 2c, I'm a guy and I too would say that if I'm reading a book and have the earbuds on... guess what? I really don't want to talk to you.

ETA: also, what he argued was that exactly the bolded part is actually false, if you listen to women relating their side to exactly that kind of story. They were actually annoyed and worried, and only faked some interest, so the guy doing it won't get aggressive. So, yes, it's not even just whether he or I disagree, but the women telling their side of that kind of story actually very much disagree.

ETA2: also, maybe it's just me, but that whole story and bolded part actually tells me you think those women actually don't know what they want. They may have explicitly put up all the signs that say "do not disturb", and they may say that they find it worrying when a guy deliberately ignores her essentially having a big "no" sign, but you know better that they don't really want what they think they want. Once a Real Man shows them what they've been missing, man, they probably thank the stars they didn't actually get that quiet ride they were asking for. Heh.

 

[Elizabeth I]

In this hypothetical scenario I risk annoying 9 women for a few minutes each, so that 1 woman can meet someone they like. It's not about only about me..it's also about that 1 girl. So that math is that 9 lose and 2 gain. Is the gain of the two worth the loss of the 9? I just made up the 9/10, but if 9/10 is too high, when does it become okay? 5/10, 1/10, 1/100? Never?

No, you should absolutely approach all women everywhere under any circumstances no matter what they may be doing because obviously getting to know you will be such a positive life-changing experience that eventually they will all thank you, and in fact if every woman in the world could just know your manly awesomeness choirs would be formed to sing your praises.

 

[SatanicSheep]

No, you should absolutely approach all women everywhere under any circumstances no matter what they may be doing because obviously getting to know you will be such a positive life-changing experience that eventually they will all thank you, and in fact if every woman in the world could just know your manly awesomeness choirs would be formed to sing your praises.

Good advice, because he's Schrodinger's Prince Charming.

That's where I see the conflict in the philosophy. Yes I am Schrodinger's rapist, as well as Schrodinger's shape shifting reptoid. Much like granny in her 85 towncar is Schrodinger's cop killer in the same way that the vato in a low rider is (psst cops profile people all the time). Saying "I never really know" and then using statistics to say "except when I sorta, kinda know." doesn't add up to me.

That's why I don't understand the point of the article. It's telling non rapists how not to give the impression that you're rapist, but that's never actually possible because nobody knows who is a rapist until they're commiting a rape. WTF is a normal person supposed to garner from this?

 

[Furcifer]

Except I'm not saying 1 in 6 men are rapists, and she doesn't say 1 in 6 men are rapists. That's your own strawman.

And, again, just repeating the same ridiculous strawman just one more time won't magically make it true. We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark.

I could even assume that you misread it the first time or something, but persisting in saying the same falsehood even after it's been pointed out repeatedly, has a name: lying. You know, since you were accusing others of lying.

It's amusing how everyone refuses to acknowledge what she multiplied by 10 to get her number.

"If you had ten times as many IQ points you'd have 100!"

"I don't have 10 IQ points"

"I never said you did, where'd I say that? You can't say I said that. You don't know math"

Have fun explaining how 1 person doing 10 rapes makes you any safer than 10 people doing 1 rape.

 

[Sun Countess]

This may be a little off-course at the moment, but as a math teacher, I've been completely frustrated at 3bodyproblem's inability to figure out the author's use of statistics. She's absolutely correct (though possibly wrong in her assumption that each rapist commits an average of 10 rapes, but let's grant that for now as being in the ballpark.) I've devised a little word problem, which I would love for 3bodyproblem to answer:

Scenario: 600 men and 600 women are living together in a community. At the end of an abbreviated "lifetime" together, it is discovered that 100 of the women have been raped. However, each woman doesn't have a unique rapist; in fact, it is discovered that only 10 men have committed all 100 rapes. Whether a man has committed one rape or dozens, he is now classified as a rapist.

Q1: 100 of the 600 women has been raped. This ratio can be reduced to _____________.

Q2: Ten men have committed a total of 100 rapes. On average, each man has committed ____ rapes.

Q3: 10 men in a population of 600 are rapists. This ratio can be reduced to __________.


(Answers: 1 in 6, 10 rapes, 1 in 60) I hope 3bodyproblem understands the math - given the above scenario - and if he has any issue with the numbers, I'll gladly give up my degree. I can't make it any simpler. I know that most people here understand the numbers, and know that if you change the average number of rapes per rapist to 5, that it would increase the ratio of rapists in a community to 1 in 30.


Also to ThunderChunky, I understand that you like getting to know new people, and maybe see earphones and cold body language as an interesting challenge, but where is it written that any of us is obligated to entertain a stranger? I don't like meeting new people, and I will be rude if you bother me when I clearly don't want to be disturbed, and it's not because I'm a bitch or because I want to make you work at warming me up; it's because I don't like meeting new people. Your desire to be entertained doesn't trump my desire to remain undisturbed. (Note: If you're legitimately asking for directions, I will help you and then get back to reading. If you ask for directions on a ruse, I'll be even more pissed.)

 

[Furcifer]

So, if you don't get your panties in a bunch over being Schrodinger's Cop Killer, why are you so upset about being Schrodinger's Rapist? The odds of each are low, and your chances of doing either are (I assume) the same, so why the outcry over one but not the other?

Nobody has their panties in a knot, it's funny how people think discussing things on the internet is some sort of "live or die" arena battle. It's a matter "I don't think this article is that great and here's why"

In this case I don't think being a woman on the bus is a high risk occupation like being a police officer on the hunt for a serial killer. The Dating Game never seems to end like an episode of Cops or America's Most Wanted.

If the police on foot patrol started walking around with their guns drawn on every person they pass on the street because everyone is a potential "murderer" or "rapist" people would begin to question their rationale.

Of course being cautious is warranted and the police in Canada carry sidearms. I don't see anything wrong with it, but it's my understanding the police in some European countries still don't carry firearms at all. So even among police there are varying levels of risk assessment.

This author doesn't seem to be saying to walk around with your guns drawn, but I bet she's packing heat

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I find that if you are not sure if a person reading or wearing earphone minds being disturbed, a good non intrusive method is to offer them one of your biscuits. If they shake their head and carry on reading they don't want to talk. If they accept with a "Ooh, thanks, I love these ones" and put the book down etc, you are probably OK striking up a conversation.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Have fun explaining how 1 person doing 10 rapes makes you any safer than 10 people doing 1 rape.

So now we have to add moving goal posts to your long list of fallacies? You were saying she accuses 1 man in 6 of being a rapist, and even claimed it's somehow necessary for her maths. You were repeatedly asked to provide a quotation to support that. Now instead of that, you're shifting goalposts to "yeah, but you're not safer than that." Yeah, and?

She's still not much safer than 1 in 6 lifetime chance to be raped anyway, so if you just wanted to get to "you're not safer than" you could have just left it at that, as a known number. So the whole detour into making a fuss over exactly how many rapes per rapist she estimates and why that's wrong... was... what? Just a red herring?

Plus, I never said it makes me or her any safer. Her lifetime chance is still 1 in 6. Asking me to support a position I never claimed, is exactly a textbook case of a strawman.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Good advice, because he's Schrodinger's Prince Charming.

That's where I see the conflict in the philosophy. Yes I am Schrodinger's rapist, as well as Schrodinger's shape shifting reptoid. Much like granny in her 85 towncar is Schrodinger's cop killer in the same way that the vato in a low rider is (psst cops profile people all the time). Saying "I never really know" and then using statistics to say "except when I sorta, kinda know." doesn't add up to me.

That's why I don't understand the point of the article. It's telling non rapists how not to give the impression that you're rapist, but that's never actually possible because nobody knows who is a rapist until they're commiting a rape. WTF is a normal person supposed to garner from this?

I dunno, it seemed actually pretty clear to me, when you read what she actually says.

She's saying that since she doesn't know it, if you want to pick her up and maybe end up in an intimate relationship, you should not start by showing disrespect for her or her choices. E.g., she's saying basically that if you start by giving her the impression that you take her "no" as a "yes" when it comes to conversation or anything else, then WTH, it's only correct to learn that sometimes you ignore her "no". Etc.

Seems clear enough to me. Did you try actually reading it?

 

[Furcifer]

Scenario: 600 men and 600 women are living together in a community. At the end of an abbreviated "lifetime" together, it is discovered that 100 of the women have been raped. However, each woman doesn't have a unique rapist; in fact, it is discovered that only 10 men have committed all 100 rapes. Whether a man has committed one rape or dozens, he is now classified as a rapist.

I'm a little concerned a math teacher is having trouble with this, but I think it's just being stubborn as opposed to being completely ignorant.

In order for the author to jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted to 1 in 60 men are rapists she has to assume a direct correlation between the number of assaults to the number of rapists. First she assumes 1 in 6 men are rapists. She then hypothesizes that they may be responsible for 10 rapes, thus reducing her initial assumption to 1 in 60.

What I find completely absurd is how people seem to think this makes any difference statistically. I will demonstrate with an example.

Barb lives in a neighborhood, where there are 40 women and 60 men. There is a rapist in the neighborhood. This neighbour will commit 10 rapes.

Fran lives in a neighborhood where there are 40 women and 60 men. 10 men in the neighborhood will commit a single rape each.

Is Barb safer than Fran? Does a serial rapist committing 10 rapes in Barb's neighborhood change her chances of being raped?

Let's see: In Barb's neighborhood there are 40 women and 10 rapes, that's 1 in 4 women will be raped.

In Fran's neighborhood there are 40 women and 10 rapes, that's 1 in 4 women

But how is that possible? The "rapist concentration" is different, in Barb's neighborhood it's 1 in 60 rapists and in Fran's neighborhood it's 1 in 6?

Quite the conundrum isn't it?


ETA: If you don't understand how this applies to "Schrodinger's Rapist" and this authors probability calculation I would politely suggest you do a refresher course on stats.

 

[Furcifer]

So now we have to add moving goal posts to your long list of fallacies? You were saying she accuses 1 man in 6 of being a rapist, and even claimed it's somehow necessary for her maths. You were repeatedly asked to provide a quotation to support that. Now instead of that, you're shifting goalposts to "yeah, but you're not safer than that." Yeah, and?

She's still not much safer than 1 in 6 lifetime chance to be raped anyway, so if you just wanted to get to "you're not safer than" you could have just left it at that, as a known number. So the whole detour into making a fuss over exactly how many rapes per rapist she estimates and why that's wrong... was... what? Just a red herring?

Plus, I never said it makes me or her any safer. Her lifetime chance is still 1 in 6. Asking me to support a position I never claimed, is exactly a textbook case of a strawman.

Wow, pot meet kettle, kettle pot.

This is Professor Yaffle's red herring "Where did she say 1 in 6 men are rapists, she never said that, she said 1 in 60"

Then you all jumped on board with the red herring.

Whether she said it or not is irrelevant to discussing the probability of her being raped and her risk assessment. (It's the title of the article that gives it away)

So you trump out this red herring, have it dismantled before your eyes, and then claim it's my red herring?

Unbelievable. This debate style discussion isn't for you bro. You obviously discovered the "list of fallacies" and decided to engage in every one of them.

I'll repeat, this is your red herring, I never brought it up, you did. You've been schooled (like a fish )

 

[Sun Countess]

I'm a little concerned a math teacher is having trouble with this, but I think it's just being stubborn as opposed to being completely ignorant.

No. I'm trying to get you to see where she gets her numbers. She made an assumption that each rapist commits an average of ten rapes; otherwise, one in six women getting assaulted by one unique rapist would mean that one in six men were rapists. She made a point of saying that's obviously not the case. Therefore, each rapist is on average committing more than one rape. She made a ballpark guess that each was on average responsible for ten rapes, to bring the number of rapists in the general population down to 1 in 60. If each rapist were in fact responsible for fewer rapes on average, then the proportion of rapists would have to rise, because the fact is that 1 in 6 women is still being raped by somebody.

Why didn't you answer the three questions I gave you? Do you have any problem with those numbers?

In order for the author to jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted to 1 in 60 men are rapists she has to assume a direct correlation between the number of assaults to the number of rapists.

No she doesn't. She notes that there's not a direct one-to-one correlation between rapists and victims. She makes a point of that.

First she assumes 1 in 6 men are rapists.

No she doesn't! She starts with the fact that 1 in 6 women are rape victims, but clearly states that not all are victims of unique men. We all know there are serial rapists out there, so it's very obvious that at least some proprtion of rapists commit more than one rape. They're not all committing one rape, and they're not all committing 50 rapes, but there will be an average number of rapes committed per rapist.

She then hypothesizes that they may be responsible for 10 rapes, thus reducing her initial assumption to 1 in 60.

This part is correct.

Barb lives in a neighborhood, where there are 40 women and 60 men. There is a rapist in the neighborhood. This neighbour will commit 10 rapes.

Fran lives in a neighborhood where there are 40 women and 60 men. 10 men in the neighborhood will commit a single rape each.

Is Barb safer than Fran? Does a serial rapist committing 10 rapes in Barb's neighborhood change her chances of being raped?

Let's see: In Barb's neighborhood there are 40 women and 10 rapes, that's 1 in 4 women will be raped.

In Fran's neighborhood there are 40 women and 10 rapes, that's 1 in 4 women

But how is that possible? The "rapist concentration" is different, in Barb's neighborhood it's 1 in 60 rapists and in Fran's neighborhood it's 1 in 6?

Quite the conundrum isn't it?

How is this a conundrum? The risks are the same, but in Fran's neighborhood, the proportion of rapists is higher, so a woman living there probably shouldn't leave her house because 1 in 6 men is a rapist.

All the author has said is that we probably live in Barb's neighborhood, where the average number of rapes being committed by each rapist is higher, but where only 1 in 60 men is a rapist. She didn't say every rapist commits exactly 10. She did recognize that we don't live in Fran's neighborhood.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm a little concerned a math teacher is having trouble with this, but I think it's just being stubborn as opposed to being completely ignorant.

In order for the author to jump from 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted to 1 in 60 men are rapists she has to assume a direct correlation between the number of assaults to the number of rapists. First she assumes 1 in 6 men are rapists.

No, once again, she doesn't.

Think about this for a second. Everyone, including a math teacher is telling you that you don't understand the math. Either absolutely everyone else is wrong, or you are. You may want to take a step back and think about this.

 

[SatanicSheep]

E.g., she's saying basically that if you start by giving her the impression that you take her "no" as a "yes" when it comes to conversation or anything else, then WTH, it's only correct to learn that sometimes you ignore her "no". Etc.

Is that really how people gauge social interactions, by spurious associations?

A: "Wanna see a movie?"

B: "No"

A:"Oh come on there's a good one playing."

B: "Please don't rape me."

A: ?

 

[Furcifer]

No she doesn't. She notes that there's not a direct one-to-one correlation between rapists and victims. She makes a point of that.

SHE HAS TOO, there is no other way. She has nothing to multiply by 10 to get her next figure.

What kind of math teacher doesn't follow the work and just jumps to the answer? Unreal, you can't be teaching math above grade 4 level because there is simply no way you can overlook the intermediary steps here. (I mean that in the sense you aren't checking their work, you're just looking at the answer, not as a dig at your skill level, but I am beginning to wonder)

FSM, she has to multiply something by 10 to get the figure she gets. Her baseline assumption still reduces to 1 in 6 rapists.

This is a red herring, this doesn't change the probability anyways. In terms of risk assessment it's exactly the same, it just looks different.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Dude, seriously, she's right, you're wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

No, once again, she doesn't.

Think about this for a second. Everyone, including a math teacher is telling you that you don't understand the math. Either absolutely everyone else is wrong, or you are. You may want to take a step back and think about this.

Ah no, I bet I'm the one with the most recent experience in math at a post secondary level. Not that it matters, it's simple arithmetic.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge something doesn't make you right.

 

[Furcifer]

Dude, seriously, she's right, you're wrong.

Ahh, now that you've been proven wrong and shown your chasing some red herring you're ready to just move one right

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Wow, pot meet kettle, kettle pot.

This is Professor Yaffle's red herring "Where did she say 1 in 6 men are rapists, she never said that, she said 1 in 60"

Then you all jumped on board with the red herring.

Whether she said it or not is irrelevant to discussing the probability of her being raped and her risk assessment. (It's the title of the article that gives it away)

So you trump out this red herring, have it dismantled before your eyes, and then claim it's my red herring?

Unbelievable. This debate style discussion isn't for you bro. You obviously discovered the "list of fallacies" and decided to engage in every one of them.

I'll repeat, this is your red herring, I never brought it up, you did. You've been schooled (like a fish )

Dude, delusional BS like that everyone else has been schooled and it's some action against you if everyone points it out, still is just more fallacies. I mean above you still haven't supported anything, you just added one more ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy to that list of fallacies you use. Are you going to support your points with actual logic any time soon?

Ah, right, you also just proved you don't know the difference between red herring and strawman. I shouldn't hold my breath, eh?

And yes, maybe I just found the list of fallacies and maybe not. That's irrelevant. But you're the one doing them. If you want that people stop calling them out, here's a simple recipe: stop doing them. Try using actual valid logic for a change. It's really that simple.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Jeez! This is really simple. She never makes the assumption that one rapist=one rape. She is saying that IF each rapist committed only one rape, then the rapist rate would be 1 in 6. Then she says its unlikely that each rapist only ever rapes one woman and makes a guesstimate of them committing on average 10 rapes each. She is then saying that is this guesstimate is the case then one man in 60 is a rapist. If you think rapists commit less than 10 rapes each on average, the figure will be somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 60. She errs on the side of a lower rate estimate and says that even this rate is scary.

ETA - I have done some teaching of statistics at undergraduate level.

Also, although the 1 in 60 or 1 in 6 makes no difference to the overall level of rape in these circumstances, it DOES make a difference in appraising the risk of each individual you meet which is what she is trying to do, but still erring on the generous side.