5 ms·

Self-reported. Not a random population. The numbers are higher because most men (the ones who refused to take part) are intelligent enough to not denounce thems

by jhiska 9y ago

Self-reported. Not a random population. The numbers are higher because most men (the ones who refused to take part) are intelligent enough to not denounce themselves to the NYT for serious sexual offences. Not reliable, and may do more harm than good, because it maximizes minor harassment, but minimizes the numbers of serious harassment.

grenoire 9y ago
Sometimes you cannot get better data. Insights provided from self-reported studies are not necessarily externally valid, yet they are valuable nevertheless.
- jhiska 9y ago
  There are decades of research studies on this topic in criminology alone that the NYT can tap into. Look up the field of "victimology". On the other hand, the NYT is not a scientific journal. Supposedly, they know what makes people interested in a topic. They want to start a public conversation, and while that's innocent and beneficial enough, they're starting the conversation on the wrong foot, and commentators like me end up having to talk about what I talked instead. It would also be interesting if they brought up women-on-men harassment figures, if only to point that the numbers are so much lower, and other data that suggests that this might be indicative of cultural differences between how men and women in the West are raised (and not some innate male proclivity to harass that supposedly has to be socially repressed).
- trentmb 9y ago
  > are valuable nevertheless ... or incredibly harmful.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vectorEQ 9y ago
how people waste their time. imagine someone thought this was a sound idea to do it like this >.> and approved it for a big media outlet. this is like those "science proves cats are nice because 20 people like cats" articles >.<
- soyiuz 9y ago
  Do you think shedding light on harassment is a waste of time? It is a relatively large sample size and the problems with methodology are addressed. What do you suggest is a better use of the paper's time in regards to the spate of recent news about sexual harassment in the workplace?
  - swiley 9y ago
    >Do you think shedding light on harassment is a waste of time? I think you should carefully reread that comment, that's not what I got out of it.
forinti 9y ago
At least you get people to think about their behaviour.
- thinkMOAR 9y ago
  Only thing nytimes.com links get me to think about, is how much i hate paywalled links on HN.
sevensor 9y ago
Furthermore, the correlation with Trump approval is totally fishy. These numbers don't rule out the possibility that men harass women at roughly the same rates regardless, and self-report differently due to their awareness of the issue.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Why is it fishy? I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think it's great to see an acknowledgement that there is a potential relationship to the brazenness of serial harrassers to the fact that someone on tape admitting to sexual assault (what Trump's "locker room talk" describes is not mere harassment) is President.
- soyiuz 9y ago
  It makes sense that those who condone harassment would support others who harass, or at least tend not to see other harassers in a negative light? Self-reporting bias would certainly have some effect, but not as much as brute similarity of worldviews regarding women, gender, sex, workplace etc. Like attracts like. Nothing fishy about that.
  - whatok 9y ago
    Harvey Weinstein, several actors, tech people, politicians, etc who were serial harassers/assaulters were all outspoken on "women's rights" and feminist causes. It's very easy to think your own identical behavior is different from others and demonize people in turn. There are countless examples of this.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    Well, sure, that argument sounds reasonable to me, but nothing in the study actually supports it. And that's why this reporting is particularly dangerous. It gives us a fact that's not really a fact, further dividing the polity and making political reconciliation more difficult. Us versus them sells papers, but it's bleeding the republic.
- jhiska 9y ago
  It's a politically-charged selection from the data and was quoted out of full context on a non-scientific, mass-appeal paper. A lot of things are possible. Maybe Trump supporters are more likely to harass or maybe they surprisingly aren't; the most dangerously effective misogynist is one that adopts the language of political correctness but not the beliefs. This requires further study.
te_chris 9y ago
They acknowledge all of the methodological stuff towards the end. The NYT itself didn't conduct the research and they compared to the results of similar surveys and it was consistent. How desperate are some people to minimise this stuff?
- IronKettle 9y ago
  Well, except all the similar surveys were also self-reported as far as I can tell. It's worth noting the social desirability bias here. It's likely the problem is actually much worse than the study indicates.
- weberc2 9y ago
  A lot of people are legitimately skeptical of the Times and other outlets reporting on social/political topics. Both the social sciences and journalists skew hard to the left, so content like this is very often biased (and incorrect as a result). Skepticism seems like a valid response; arguably more so than blind faith.
soyiuz 9y ago
Self-reported data is better than no data, as long as the nature of the sample bias is clear (which in this case it is).
awinder 9y ago
this comment is completely unsourced, proposes illogical conclusions (numbers are higher because people can’t lie to the NYT on a survey response?), and then makes a wild claim about how a survey article is going to cause societal damage. This comment is not HN caliber and a lot of you know this and still upvoted. I sincerely hope some of you grow up or find a new community to trash in 2018.
zython 9y ago
Well its a start. No need to be so harsh. It's a serious issue and I think the more and the better we report on it, the effects will only be beneficial.

by jhiska 9y ago

grenoire 9y ago

Sometimes you cannot get better data. Insights provided from self-reported studies are not necessarily externally valid, yet they are valuable nevertheless.

jhiska 9y ago
There are decades of research studies on this topic in criminology alone that the NYT can tap into. Look up the field of "victimology". On the other hand, the NYT is not a scientific journal. Supposedly, they know what makes people interested in a topic. They want to start a public conversation, and while that's innocent and beneficial enough, they're starting the conversation on the wrong foot, and commentators like me end up having to talk about what I talked instead. It would also be interesting if they brought up women-on-men harassment figures, if only to point that the numbers are so much lower, and other data that suggests that this might be indicative of cultural differences between how men and women in the West are raised (and not some innate male proclivity to harass that supposedly has to be socially repressed).
trentmb 9y ago
> are valuable nevertheless ... or incredibly harmful.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vectorEQ 9y ago

how people waste their time. imagine someone thought this was a sound idea to do it like this >.> and approved it for a big media outlet. this is like those "science proves cats are nice because 20 people like cats" articles >.<

soyiuz 9y ago
Do you think shedding light on harassment is a waste of time? It is a relatively large sample size and the problems with methodology are addressed. What do you suggest is a better use of the paper's time in regards to the spate of recent news about sexual harassment in the workplace?
- swiley 9y ago
  >Do you think shedding light on harassment is a waste of time? I think you should carefully reread that comment, that's not what I got out of it.

forinti 9y ago

At least you get people to think about their behaviour.

thinkMOAR 9y ago
Only thing nytimes.com links get me to think about, is how much i hate paywalled links on HN.

sevensor 9y ago

Furthermore, the correlation with Trump approval is totally fishy. These numbers don't rule out the possibility that men harass women at roughly the same rates regardless, and self-report differently due to their awareness of the issue.

sidlls 9y ago
Why is it fishy? I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think it's great to see an acknowledgement that there is a potential relationship to the brazenness of serial harrassers to the fact that someone on tape admitting to sexual assault (what Trump's "locker room talk" describes is not mere harassment) is President.
soyiuz 9y ago
It makes sense that those who condone harassment would support others who harass, or at least tend not to see other harassers in a negative light? Self-reporting bias would certainly have some effect, but not as much as brute similarity of worldviews regarding women, gender, sex, workplace etc. Like attracts like. Nothing fishy about that.
- whatok 9y ago
  Harvey Weinstein, several actors, tech people, politicians, etc who were serial harassers/assaulters were all outspoken on "women's rights" and feminist causes. It's very easy to think your own identical behavior is different from others and demonize people in turn. There are countless examples of this.
- sevensor 9y ago
  Well, sure, that argument sounds reasonable to me, but nothing in the study actually supports it. And that's why this reporting is particularly dangerous. It gives us a fact that's not really a fact, further dividing the polity and making political reconciliation more difficult. Us versus them sells papers, but it's bleeding the republic.
jhiska 9y ago
It's a politically-charged selection from the data and was quoted out of full context on a non-scientific, mass-appeal paper. A lot of things are possible. Maybe Trump supporters are more likely to harass or maybe they surprisingly aren't; the most dangerously effective misogynist is one that adopts the language of political correctness but not the beliefs. This requires further study.

te_chris 9y ago

They acknowledge all of the methodological stuff towards the end. The NYT itself didn't conduct the research and they compared to the results of similar surveys and it was consistent. How desperate are some people to minimise this stuff?

IronKettle 9y ago
Well, except all the similar surveys were also self-reported as far as I can tell. It's worth noting the social desirability bias here. It's likely the problem is actually much worse than the study indicates.
weberc2 9y ago
A lot of people are legitimately skeptical of the Times and other outlets reporting on social/political topics. Both the social sciences and journalists skew hard to the left, so content like this is very often biased (and incorrect as a result). Skepticism seems like a valid response; arguably more so than blind faith.

soyiuz 9y ago

Self-reported data is better than no data, as long as the nature of the sample bias is clear (which in this case it is).

awinder 9y ago

this comment is completely unsourced, proposes illogical conclusions (numbers are higher because people can’t lie to the NYT on a survey response?), and then makes a wild claim about how a survey article is going to cause societal damage. This comment is not HN caliber and a lot of you know this and still upvoted. I sincerely hope some of you grow up or find a new community to trash in 2018.

zython 9y ago

Well its a start. No need to be so harsh. It's a serious issue and I think the more and the better we report on it, the effects will only be beneficial.