Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Furcifer]

Please show your work. What statistics?

In 1995, 354670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault-
NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

I think the population is 51% female to 49% male, but there were roughly 150 000 000 males in America in 1995. 60% of incidents are alleged to go unreported based on several pages linked in this thread already.

That's assuming all sexual assault is rape. Obviously it isn't, but the figure already demonstrates the nonsense in the authors misinterpretation of stats.

 

[TraneWreck]

In 1995, 354670 women were the victims of a rape or sexual assault-
NationalCrime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.

I think the population is 51% female to 49% male, but there were roughly 150 000 000 males in America in 1995. 60% of incidents are alleged to go unreported based on several pages linked in this thread already.

That's assuming all sexual assault is rape. Obviously it isn't, but the figure already demonstrates the nonsense in the authors misinterpretation of stats.

Remember, though, we're talking over a lifetime. Most of those men that were alive in 1995 were alive in 1994 and 1996 and 2009. There's some overlap in crime, but those stats just show the percentage of men who rape in a given year.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Based on the statistics 0.23% of the US population of men. If we assume 60% go unreported, as the data suggests about 0.575% of men are rapists.

That's 1 in 174.

1. Per year. That's a different number entirely from what she quotes. So your whole fuss was based on, what, not even understanding what she's talking about? Or are you trying to say that someone ceases being a rapist after a year?

2. You're still confusing incidence with prevalence, but, wth, let's play along.

3. Nope, actually the <insert-crime>-per-capita numbers actually are really per capita. That is, they include both men and women.

Once you work out that 99% of the perpetrators are men, you actually pretty much have to double that number.

I.e., even per year, you end up with one in 90 or so. Which actually isn't all that far off from her estimate of 1 in 60.

In fact, you actually end up with an even scarier number than hers, because again, they're different numbers. She was estimating 1 in 60 in a lifetime, while your number actually says about 1 in 90 have raped in the last year alone. And more importantly for her cautions: 1 in 90 will rape in the next year. The danger only becomes a lot more immediate, and actually supports her caution even more.

By _her_ estimates of 1 in 60 and 10 rapes per rapist, actually giving a rapist, dunno, 30 years interval before he calms down, that would make it more like 1 in 180 will actually rape in the next year. While your numbers say it's twice that. So... she should be even more careful, right?

 

[Furcifer]

Wait...You believe that every man who commits rape does so once, to one woman, one time? That's why you keep insisting that " 1 out of 6 women raped" = "1 out of 6 men are rapists?"

I don't, I'm saying it's the authors mistake and the misuse of the stats that leads to this conclusion.

She provides no evidence of her claim that RAPISTS DO 10 RAPES. All we know is it takes 1 rape to make a rapist.

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists? She's obviously making a direct correlation from the number of assaulted women to the number of rapists, THEN GUESSING THEY COMMIT 10 RAPES.

You can't use statistics like this, what don't you understand? You can't, it's not correct, wrong, not right, no good, useless.

 

[Furcifer]

Once you work out that 99% of the perpetrators are men, you actually pretty much have to double that number.

Dude, time to admit you're not good at math.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Dude, time to admit you're not good at math.

Dude, your being condescending doesn't make you right.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I don't, I'm saying it's the authors mistake and the misuse of the stats that leads to this conclusion.

She provides no evidence of her claim that RAPISTS DO 10 RAPES. All we know is it takes 1 rape to make a rapist.

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists? She's obviously making a direct correlation from the number of assaulted women to the number of rapists, THEN GUESSING THEY COMMIT 10 RAPES.

You can't use statistics like this, what don't you understand? You can't, it's not correct, wrong, not right, no good, useless.

And you're still chasing a red herring based on a strawman. Even after it's been pointed out to you repeatedly.

She doesn't say that 1 in 6 men are rapists. That's your own strawman. And repeating it like a broken record won't make it true.

In fact, since you accuse me of being bad at maths, just how bad or dishonest are _you_ if it even looks like there's any way that 1 in 6 men doing 10 rapes each would somehow equal her claim of 1 in 60 men. We're even moving out of the realm of bad maths, and into the freaking stupid.

 

[Furcifer]

Remember, though, we're talking over a lifetime. Most of those men that were alive in 1995 were alive in 1994 and 1996 and 2009. There's some overlap in crime, but those stats just show the percentage of men who rape in a given year.

YES! I know, but it's hard to determine. You can't work from 1in 6 to get it. You have to work from the known numbers, then assume some die and some are born every year.

As I clearly noted earlier, the number decreases with age. It's certainly more likely, based on the stats to say the number of high school and college age rapists is higher than 1 in 174. Then there's the molestation that usually occurs with older men and younger girls. That's sexual assault as well. But these creeps are usually exclusive to molesting younger girls and not raping older women. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's certainly more common to see them assaulting girls.

 

[Furcifer]

In fact, since you accuse me of being bad at maths, just how bad or dishonest are _you_ if it even looks like there's any way that 1 in 6 men doing 10 rapes each would somehow equal her claim of 1 in 60 men. We're even moving out of the realm of bad maths, and into the freaking stupid.

What does it matter if 1 man is looking to do 10 rapes or 10 men looking to do one?

Math is not your strong suit.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

YES! I know, but it's hard to determine. You can't work from 1in 6 to get it. You have to work from the known numbers, then assume some die and some are born every year.

As I clearly noted earlier, the number decreases with age. It's certainly more likely, based on the stats to say the number of high school and college age rapists is higher than 1 in 174. Then there's the molestation that usually occurs with older men and younger girls. That's sexual assault as well. But these creeps are usually exclusive to molesting younger girls and not raping older women. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's certainly more common to see them assaulting girls.

But again you run into a problem: per capita numbers don't take only a certain range of young and able men as the capita number to divide by. They take the whole population, including the 100 year old geezer in a nursing home.

I.e., if you want to squeeze most of those in narrower age intervals for rapists, it would mean dividing it by a smaller number. Now from 1 in 90 it actually becomes even bigger, if she didn't meet a 6 year old or an octogenarian.

And if you take it as only applying to a narrower range of victims, again, that would make the incidence of an assault on her go up if she's in that range. It doesn't mean you have that 0.23 only in an interval and then zero, because averages don't work that way. To still have that 0.23 average, then one group gets more if another gets less. Because that's how averages work.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What does it matter if 1 man is looking to do 10 rapes or 10 men looking to do one?

Math is not your strong suit.

Dude, again, your being dismissive doesn't make you right. Support your claims or take a hike.

ETA: and I'm glad that you now admit that that splitting hairs doesn't make a difference. Given that you've used that as your red herring for the last few pages, does it mean you'll give that red herring a rest now?

 

[TraneWreck]

What does it matter if 1 man is looking to do 10 rapes or 10 men looking to do one?

Math is not your strong suit.

It matters a great deal if you're trying to figure out how many men have committed rapes.

 

[elipse]

That's nice, but she cannot speak for all women. There are some women who will give negative cues before you even say a single word but warm up to you when you've shown some personality. In fact, some women may appreciate the fact that you weren't scared away by a bitchy attitude in the first 5 seconds of the interaction and actually tried to get to know them.

<sigh> Know how I said to read the comments, because every argument you could think of would be covered there?

Here's what I don't get. I assume you are a heterosexual male. Please correct me if I am wrong; everything follows from this assumption.

As (I assume) a heterosexual male, I would think that you are interested in what women think. How they view the world. What they think about you, as a heterosexual male. How you can make them feel good instead of bad. (I assume you do not want to make them feel bad, on the whole. If you do, well, that's a different problem.) What if I told you there's this place on the internet where women talk to each other about exactly these things, and you can go and sneak a peek about what they're talking about? Well, here's your chance. Over 1000 posts by women, talking about just this thing: you coming up to them as a stranger and initiating conversation. You could go and investigate what they really think!

But you don't. You read the article and automatically assume that THIS woman is crazy, THIS woman is unlike any woman you've encountered, and she hasn't thought about X, Y, or Z that makes YOU different. Why don't you go and find out? Read those 1000 posts by the gender that you are interested in; find out what they think?

I don't for a second think you'll do it, so I'll mention some things that are covered.

1. Context is everything.
a.Location, for instance. It's okay to hit on women at bars, clubs, etc. She knows that's one of the things that happen at those places.
b. Body language, for another. Over and over, the women talked about what their body language looked like for "willing to talk" versus "unwilling to talk." Guess which one is which?
*hunched over, earbuds in, reading book, looking out window
*Looking around, smiling, making eye contact
c. YOUR body language. Specifically, mentioning something in a way that ensures that if she doesn't want to continue the conversation, she doesn't have to. Examples? Complimenting her shoes on your way off the bus. Telling her you've read that book, too, and then turning away to read your own.

2. No, really, about that earbud and reading thing. <---- That means don't talk to her. None of the women wrote in to say "When I'm reading with headphones, I like people to interrupt me!" On the contrary, they talked about using it specifically as a way to tell people not to talk to them, but that people were always interrupting them anyway. One man wrote in to say that, wondering if this was true, he paid attention on the bus the next morning, and holy christ! it was true. A kid with Asperger's wrote in advising them that he did the same thing, and the only book he'd found that actually worked as a deterrent was the Bible. They honestly thanked him for the tip.

3. Over and over (I keep saying this, because you seem to think it's just this one woman, but really, the same things were said, over and over, by different women) the women talked about conflict avoidance and keeping the situation from escalating. You know how lots of 'em said they did that? By smiling and pretending to be interested, so that the man in question didn't get angry and start screaming at them. Men wrote in, saying "why can't you just be direct?" and they laughed at these men. Apparently men who will disrespect one boundary (body language) and then a second (polite reply and looking away) don't care much about screaming at them in public.

I know this is hard for you, because I really do think you want to make women feel good, not bad, but what if--what if-- some of those women you refer to, the ones who "warm up" when you don't pay attention to their signals, ie, them being "bitchy" (nice revealing use of the language, there--not talking to you = bitchy), were just trying to make sure you didn't follow them off the bus/scream obscenities/assault them?

What if? Assume for the moment that this is the case. How does that make you feel? Don't say "that can't possibly be it!"-- assume that what these women said is how they really feel. Take them at their word. How does it make you feel?

 

[Elizabeth I]

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists?

Please give the exact quote in the article where the author says this. Don't say she says it. Show what she says and where she says it.

 

[bookitty]

<sigh> Know how I said to read the comments, because every argument you could think of would be covered there?

Here's what I don't get. I assume you are a heterosexual male. Please correct me if I am wrong; everything follows from this assumption.

As (I assume) a heterosexual male, I would think that you are interested in what women think. How they view the world. What they think about you, as a heterosexual male. How you can make them feel good instead of bad. (I assume you do not want to make them feel bad, on the whole. If you do, well, that's a different problem.) What if I told you there's this place on the internet where women talk to each other about exactly these things, and you can go and sneak a peek about what they're talking about? Well, here's your chance. Over 1000 posts by women, talking about just this thing: you coming up to them as a stranger and initiating conversation. You could go and investigate what they really think!

But you don't. You read the article and automatically assume that THIS woman is crazy, THIS woman is unlike any woman you've encountered, and she hasn't thought about X, Y, or Z that makes YOU different. Why don't you go and find out? Read those 1000 posts by the gender that you are interested in; find out what they think?

I don't for a second think you'll do it, so I'll mention some things that are covered.

1. Context is everything.
a.Location, for instance. It's okay to hit on women at bars, clubs, etc. She knows that's one of the things that happen at those places.
b. Body language, for another. Over and over, the women talked about what their body language looked like for "willing to talk" versus "unwilling to talk." Guess which one is which?
*hunched over, earbuds in, reading book, looking out window
*Looking around, smiling, making eye contact
c. YOUR body language. Specifically, mentioning something in a way that ensures that if she doesn't want to continue the conversation, she doesn't have to. Examples? Complimenting her shoes on your way off the bus. Telling her you've read that book, too, and then turning away to read your own.

2. No, really, about that earbud and reading thing. <---- That means don't talk to her. None of the women wrote in to say "When I'm reading with headphones, I like people to interrupt me!" On the contrary, they talked about using it specifically as a way to tell people not to talk to them, but that people were always interrupting them anyway. One man wrote in to say that, wondering if this was true, he paid attention on the bus the next morning, and holy christ! it was true. A kid with Asperger's wrote in advising them that he did the same thing, and the only book he'd found that actually worked as a deterrent was the Bible. They honestly thanked him for the tip.

3. Over and over (I keep saying this, because you seem to think it's just this one woman, but really, the same things were said, over and over, by different women) the women talked about conflict avoidance and keeping the situation from escalating. You know how lots of 'em said they did that? By smiling and pretending to be interested, so that the man in question didn't get angry and start screaming at them. Men wrote in, saying "why can't you just be direct?" and they laughed at these men. Apparently men who will disrespect one boundary (body language) and then a second (polite reply and looking away) don't care much about screaming at them in public.

I know this is hard for you, because I really do think you want to make women feel good, not bad, but what if--what if-- some of those women you refer to, the ones who "warm up" when you don't pay attention to their signals, ie, them being "bitchy" (nice revealing use of the language, there--not talking to you = bitchy), were just trying to make sure you didn't follow them off the bus/scream obscenities/assault them?

What if? Assume for the moment that this is the case. How does that make you feel? Don't say "that can't possibly be it!"-- assume that what these women said is how they really feel. Take them at their word. How does it make you feel?

This.

 

[elipse]

I don't, I'm saying it's the authors mistake and the misuse of the stats that leads to this conclusion.

She provides no evidence of her claim that RAPISTS DO 10 RAPES. All we know is it takes 1 rape to make a rapist.

You don't see the baseline she is using? That 1 in 6 men are rapists? She's obviously making a direct correlation from the number of assaulted women to the number of rapists, THEN GUESSING THEY COMMIT 10 RAPES.

You can't use statistics like this, what don't you understand? You can't, it's not correct, wrong, not right, no good, useless.

How can it be the author's mistake when SHE NEVER SAID IT??? She never said it. Only you have said it. SHE NEVER SAID IT!!!

In fact, if you give me an hour to get home from work, I will quote the reply she made to the other guy who misread her stats, telling him that she never said it. Or you could just admit she never said it...

 

[Furcifer]

But again you run into a problem: per capita numbers don't take only a certain range of young and able men as the capita number to divide by. They take the whole population, including the 100 year old geezer in a nursing home.

I.e., if you want to squeeze most of those in narrower age intervals for rapists, it would mean dividing it by a smaller number. Now from 1 in 90 it actually becomes even bigger, if she didn't meet a 6 year old or an octogenarian.

And if you take it as only applying to a narrower range of victims, again, that would make the incidence of an assault on her go up if she's in that range. It doesn't mean you have that 0.23 only in an interval and then zero, because averages don't work that way. To still have that 0.23 average, then one group gets more if another gets less. Because that's how averages work.

You know you've won the debate when your opponent begins to argue your position and doesn't even realize it

Do you know see the importance of identifying your demographic when reporting statistics? I said quite clearly before this diatribe started there's a difference between a girl in college and a 35 year woman on the bus. And you can't base your "rapist concentration" on the number of women assaulted and your fictitious number of rapes per rapist.

 

[Furcifer]

Please give the exact quote in the article where the author says this. Don't say she says it. Show what she says and where she says it.

Try to follow the thread, I already said she didn't say this in the article. It's implied by her misuse of statistics. You simply can't arrive at 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes without assuming 1 in 6 men commit rape.

What do you think she's multiplying by 10? Just answer me that question.

Just so you know, 1 in 6 women are assaulted times 10 rapes per rapist doesn't equal 1 in 60 men are rapists. It doesn't work like this. You can't do it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Try to follow the thread, I already said she didn't say this in the article. It's implied by her misuse of statistics. You simply can't arrive at 1 in 60 rapists commit 10 rapes without assuming 1 in 6 men commit rape.

You can't arrive at 1/60 men are rapists and 1/6 men are rapists. That violates the identity rule of formal logic. This is such a basic mathematical concept that I can't imagine how you can so continually bork this up.

If X= 1/6
X cannot also equal 1/60

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@3bodyproblem: Dude, so basically you've already forgot your posts from half an hour ago? You don't see how I was just using your point to answer your previous objection?

Yes, I get it, you're mistakenly thinking that being dismissive is some kind of winning move. I'm still not impressed. Especially when that winning move actually consists of pretending to have some dysfunction that makes you unable to remember even posts on the same page.

Support your points adequately or take a hike.