Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SpuriusMaximus]

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

Dude, once again, doing the troll trope of claiming victory still is just a troll trope and not doing much. No, you haven't proven me or her wrong. Yes, it was your red herring and strawman all along. No, you still haven't supported it.

And WTH, it's in a thread where everything is written down. Claiming more lies about who wrote what is silly.

Then again for someone arguing that you need to assume 1 in 6 of X have property Y, to get 1 in 60 of X have property Y and still doesn't see the impossibility...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I mean, geesh, let's put that problem in the form of a simple primary school maths problem. I'm sure most fourth graders can solve it.

Farmer Hans has 60 female fowl. 1 in 6 of them is a hen.

Farmer Hans also has 60 male fowl. For each 10 hen there is a rooster.

How many roosters does farmer Hans have? One in how many male fowl is a rooster?

ETA: now also please explain how would you call someone who thinks you need to assume 10 roosters (1 in 6) to get 1 rooster (1 in 60), and not even notice they're mutually exclusive.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

Exactly, she's using 1 in 6 as her baseline. "If" they commit 10 or 50 it's still the same probability.

Although a higher number would suggest she is slightly less likely to get raped assuming she only meets or encounters men in fractional amounts of the number she chooses. It depends a bit on the interval. 6 or 60 is essentially the same over a lifetime, but 6 or 240 might make a difference.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But the only time she uses a 1 in 6 baseline is for _women_ raped, not for how many males are rapists.

 

[Sun Countess]

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

No. She makes a point of saying that one in six men is NOT a rapist; therefore each rapist is ON AVERAGE committing more than one rape. She makes the immediate assumption of saying that one in six men is clearly NOT a rapist. You may call it a baseline - because that's the number of female victims - but she jumps well away from it specifically because that number is not based in reality.

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)

Honestly, I don't care too much about what somebody with absolutely no understanding of math thinks about my ability. I teach high school math, and I have no problem with the numbers presented. Yes, she makes an assumption of a 10 per rapist average, and it's probably in the ballpark. As much as I don't like to think that rapists commit such a large number of rapes on average, I'd much rather think that than that more than 1 in 60 men was actually out perpetrating these crimes on women. Because 1 in 6 is still a victim.

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

She's multiplying by something because evidence shows that most rapists have more than one victim.

Everybody else here seems to understand what's going on mathematically, and how she very very clearly states that one in six is an assumption she takes explicit care to NOT make.

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.

It's not the same in terms of risk assessment at all! I would much rather live in a neighborhood where 1 in 60 were a rapist than where 1 in 6 were a rapist. I wouldn't leave my house if I thought 1 in 6 men were capable of that crime.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

Like I said, irrelevant with such a small interval over a lifetime, which is where she gets her 1 in 6. Even on a normal day she encounters more than 60 men according to her own words.

And it isn't erring on the generous side. If you try to get a number from the study Hans cited with college males it was around 4% of the population committing multiple rapes. Knowing also college women are 4 times more likely to be raped, there's simply no way rapists are committing 10 rapes each. College women would have to about 10 times more likely to get raped.

A generous estimate is about 2.5.

 

[Furcifer]

No. She makes a point of saying that one in six men is NOT a rapist; therefore each rapist is ON AVERAGE committing more than one rape..

Listen it doesn't matter what she says, it matters what she does. She still assumes 1 in 6 are rapists.

She has too. Any multiples of 1 in 6 don't change the odds except where they (rapes per rapist) get very high and the number of men she meets is very low.

 

[Furcifer]

It's not the same in terms of risk assessment at all! I would much rather live in a neighborhood where 1 in 60 were a rapist than where 1 in 6 were a rapist. I wouldn't leave my house if I thought 1 in 6 men were capable of that crime.

So you'd rather be a shut in? Because in case you didn't understand the only way to avoid rape (lower you odds of being raped) in the 1 in 60 neighborhood is to not meet the 60 men in your lifetime.

I think you're lying however, because I bet if there was a serial rapist committing hundreds of rapes you'd be even more scared than if it were multiple men committing a few rapes.


ETA: you can't avoid it all together, just lower the odds

 

[TraneWreck]

Your odds of being assaulted in the 1 in 6 neighborhood are exactly the same as the 1 in 60 with an average of 10/assailant.

The odds that any given man you're talking to is an assailant are 10x lower in the 1 in 60 neighborhood.

And, once again, it's irrelevant because the non-guess based numbers are much worse:

...conservative estimates suggest that at least 25 percent of American women have been sexually assaulted in adolescence or adulthood and that 18 percent have been raped. Furthermore, at least 20 percent of American men report having perpetrated sexual assault and 5 percent report having committed rape (Crowell and Burgess 1996; Spitzberg 1999; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).

Granted violent crime of all types has been on the decline since the mid-90's, but 1 in 5 men ADMIT to perpetrating sexual assault and 1 in 20 ADMIT to raping.

The author in the OP was being insanely generous to show that the odds of any given man being a sex criminal were depressingly high. The actual numbers are worse.

Why should I care about this tomfoolery with made up statistics when the more reliable numbers strengthen the author's position?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@3bodyproblem: No, she doesn't assume that 1 in 6 is a rapist. Geesh, how much more basic can something be explained? Try the roosters problem, really. I'm sure you can't screw that up even if you wanted to.

Well, ok, now I probably jinxed it

And I'm glad you agree that that level of risk would be enough to warrant shutting yourself in, because, well, now you know what women face and they have to function in a society where most don't have the option to live their whole lives shut in. They still have to go to work or shopping or whatever, whether they like those odds or not.

But nobody says that all that works is to not meet them at all. All that works is to not give them a chance to get in a position where they could start the attack. E.g., as she proposes, if a guy comes across as the kind who overrides her saying "no", then basically don't start dating him or anything. E.g., if someone seems to not mind cornering you in situations that make you feel vulnerable, basically don't follow him home and let him corner you there. That was the scope of her article, really.

Really, all it actually says is that you want to pick up a girl for a relationship, don't start by giving her the signals that say such a relationship could be a bad idea.

Now I'm sure there are more immediate measures she and other women take every day, but the actual article doesn't actually go into those. All that it does deal with is, really: so you want to pick up a girl, here's how you can maximize your chances by not tripping her alarms.

If anything, given the usual complaint that women should come with a manual, well, that's what she does there. Consider that part of that manual. Kudos to her for writing it. And sadly the reactions also prove why more don't.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Yaffle, with all due respect, please don't feed the troll by proving that if he repeats the same lie over and over again someone eventually will believe it.

The article doesn't say 1 in 6 men are rapists, even with an "if" or anything. It's just not in there. At all. He's even been challenged to support that accusation, and the best he can do is handwave about how her maths _must_ have gone, but the actual article makes no such 1 in 6 are rapists claim at all, even in passing, even as an ad absurdum, or really at all.

The actual quote where she introduces the 1 in 60 number reads, copy-and-paste: "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. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty."

There is no "if one in six men are rapists" in there at all. That's purely and completely 3bodyproblem's own strawman.

Look, I'm not picking on you and generally I agree with most of what you wrote. But it's depressing to see that a lying troll can actually get intelligent people to believe his strawman if he only repeats it two dozen times.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I was just breaking down the logic of how she got to her figure. She makes (implicitly) a conditional statement, not an assumption. Its the logic end that 3bodyproblem has the problem, not the sums end.

 

[Furcifer]

I was just breaking down the logic of how she got to her figure. She makes (implicitly) a conditional statement, not an assumption. Its the logic end that 3bodyproblem has the problem, not the sums end.

That's fine, then you admit her statement is nonsense. It's conditional on each rapist committing 10 rapes and that hasn't been proven.

I have proven that it only takes 1 rape to make someone a rapist, and based on my conditional statement hers means 1 in 6 are rapists.

Either way you look at it her statement is dependent on a direct correlation between 1 in 6 sexual assaults to 1 in 6 rapists.

Short of any proof one way or the other I am in the right to say the conditions of her statement leads to the conclusion that 1 in 6 men are rapists.

"If" it's one, which we know for sure then it's 1 in 6, "if" it's 10 which we don't know then it's 1 in 60. I'll stick with what I know until proven otherwise thank you very much

 

[Furcifer]

Your odds of being assaulted in the 1 in 6 neighborhood are exactly the same as the 1 in 60 with an average of 10/assailant.
The odds that any given man you're talking to is an assailant are 10x lower in the 1 in 60 neighborhood.

Really? I'm going to let the stats teacher field this one.

Why should I care about this tomfoolery with made up statistics when the more reliable numbers strengthen the author's position?

Because she's talking about strangers and not people she knows. You know why that is right? You realize she is at significantly more risk from people she's already screened, not the stranger on the bus or some guy at the gym?

At least from a "rapist", not from some jerk "street harassing" her. That's why it's been reiterated about a hundred times "Schrodinger's Rapist" is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[bookitty]

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: ?

Is there any human interaction that is as simple as that? We all judge a situation by past experience, non-verbal clues, subtle power-plays and presentation.

If a person is pressing the issue in a conversation, there will quiet chimes of warning. The longer it continues or the more persistent it becomes, the louder that warning gets. It happens regardless of the gender. With women being approached by a strange man, there are sexual undertones to conversation and the warning.

 

[TraneWreck]

Really? I'm going to let the stats teacher field this one.

God, why are you having so much trouble with this?

Town X has a female population of 600,000 and a male population of 600,000. 100,000 of the women have been raped at some point.

Option A: If 100,000 men committed the 100,000 rapes, there is a 1 in 6 chance that any man you talk to would be one of the rapists.

Option B: If 10,000 men committed the 100,000 rapes, there is a 1 in 60 chance that any man you talk to would be one of the rapists.

Thus, from the perspective of a woman, your chances of being assaulted are 1 in 6 under either option. However, the odds that a random man is one of the rapists is 1 in 6 under option A and 1 in 60 under option B. You are 10x more likely to be talking to a rapist when you meet a strange man under Option A.

Because she's talking about strangers and not people she knows. You know why that is right? You realize she is at significantly more risk from people she's already screened, not the stranger on the bus or some guy at the gym?

At least from a "rapist", not from some jerk "street harassing" her. That's why it's been reiterated about a hundred times "Schrodinger's Rapist" is a bit of a misnomer.

Now you're flying between two different issues again.

Whether or not the numbers need to be refined in a given situation is irrelevant to your consternation over the 1/6, 1/60 issue. If you read the article, as was just quoted, she is talking about known men. Some number of them are rapists. Turns out many more than she guessed.

Not to mention that "knowing" your assailant could mean:

"Who raped you?"
"He was this guy that rode my bus. He was always trying to talk to me, so I finally gave him my e-mail address. He would always follow me home."

 

[TraneWreck]

That's fine, then you admit her statement is nonsense. It's conditional on each rapist committing 10 rapes and that hasn't been proven.

I have proven that it only takes 1 rape to make someone a rapist, and based on my conditional statement hers means 1 in 6 are rapists.

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?

OJ is a murderer, he killed two people. Ted Bundy is a murderer, he killed around 50. The two of them average 26 murders, that doesn't mean you aren't a murderer until you've killed 26 people.

Either way you look at it her statement is dependent on a direct correlation between 1 in 6 sexual assaults to 1 in 6 rapists.

Short of any proof one way or the other I am in the right to say the conditions of her statement leads to the conclusion that 1 in 6 men are rapists.

Nope, not even cose.

 

[bookitty]

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.

 

[Furcifer]

And I'm glad you agree that that level of risk would be enough to warrant shutting yourself in, because, well, now you know what women face and they have to function in a society where most don't have the option to live their whole lives shut in. They still have to go to work or shopping or whatever, whether they like those odds or not.

Um yah, FYI we knew this already. This discussion is about how many men approaching women are rapists, and if the term "rapist" is really applicable based on the probability or if it's inflammatory.

But nobody says that all that works is to not meet them at all. All that works is to not give them a chance to get in a position where they could start the attack.

Actually no, if we look at the stats it's about the people you know, not the people you don't. There is no magic filter that prevents a woman from being raped by a stranger. You're either going to be social and take the risks (which might be a good case for never getting to know anyone) or you're going to be anti-social and never get to know anyone and reduce your risks.

E.g., as she proposes, if a guy comes across as the kind who overrides her saying "no", then basically don't start dating him or anything. E.g., if someone seems to not mind cornering you in situations that make you feel vulnerable, basically don't follow him home and let him corner you there. That was the scope of her article, really.

Again the stats don't seem to support this in terms of being "raped". Harassed certainly, but not a "rapist". There's nothing wrong with preventing harassment, so don't confuse saying they aren't a rapist with it's OK to allow yourself to be harassed.

Really, all it actually says is that you want to pick up a girl for a relationship, don't start by giving her the signals that say such a relationship could be a bad idea.

There was never any question of this, why do you feel the need to bring it up?

Now I'm sure there are more immediate measures she and other women take every day, but the actual article doesn't actually go into those. All that it does deal with is, really: so you want to pick up a girl, here's how you can maximize your chances by not tripping her alarms.

Sadly this is probably what the rapists want to know, not Joe blow looking for someone to take out to a movie.

If anything, given the usual complaint that women should come with a manual, well, that's what she does there. Consider that part of that manual. Kudos to her for writing it. And sadly the reactions also prove why more don't.

The manual is still in Womanese

I've never been a pushy guy, in fact the last girl I dated I got tired of calling and talking to all the time. She wanted to be pursued and I just can't be bothered. I stopped calling and that was that. I don't think we even "broke up", last time I saw her she was just as friendly and said "call me". meh.

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)

 

[Furcifer]

God, why are you having so much trouble with this?

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.

If you read the article, as was just quoted, she is talking about known men.
Not to mention that "knowing" your assailant could mean:
"Who raped you?"
"He was this guy that rode my bus. He was always trying to talk to me, so I finally gave him my e-mail address. He would always follow me home."

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