3 ms·

No, you don't understand. That's only the second half of the objection. The first half of the objection is that "most rapists are people you know" just does n

by Jiro 5y ago

No, you don't understand. That's only the second half of the objection. The first half of the objection is that "most rapists are people you know" just does not imply that a person you know is more dangerous than a stranger. It implies that the entire class of "people you know" causes more rapes than the entire class of strangers you have substantial contact with, but it doesn't imply that a single person from the first class is more dangerous than a single person from the second class, because the classes are of different sizes. I'm pretty sure that more people are killed by slipping in the bathtub than by falling into a volcano. You should not conclude that falling into a volcano is safer than slipping in a bathtub, because people encounter bathtubs a lot more and you have not corrected your figures for frequency of encounters.

ModernMech 5y ago
The lopsided nature of the numbers is not an accident. That half of all sexual assaults and rapes occur at the hands of intimate partners and family is reflective of the nature of these crimes -- usually they are perpetrated when the assailant has isolated his victim, many times starting from a place of trust. The point of noting that 90% figure is not so you can come up with some sort of Bayesian probability of your getting assaulted based on population level statistics. It's to shift the narrative of the nature of sexual assault and rape to something more reflective of the reality of these crimes in practice. You even see it here in this thread, the idea that homeless people are lurking in the street ready to rape and assault you if you make the mistake of offering them kindness. But that's not how 90%+ of these crimes actually happen in practice, so why should our first response to the homeless be one of profound distrust? > I'm pretty sure that more people are killed by slipping in the bathtub than by falling into a volcano. You should not conclude that falling into a volcano is safer than slipping in a bathtub, because people encounter bathtubs a lot more and you have not corrected your figures for frequency of encounters. Again, it's not just about the frequency of encounters, it's about the nature of them. On any given day I encounter more strangers than I do friends and family. But my interactions with strangers are not conducive to the crimes of rape and sexual assault. Friends, family, and acquaintances work to gain your trust before they violate it. If we really want to get into it, then the thing to watch out for is not stranger versus familiar status of a person, but whether they direct certain manipulative behaviors toward you.
- Jiro 5y ago
  >The point of noting that 90% figure is not so you can come up with some sort of Bayesian probability of your getting assaulted based on population level statistics. It's quite common that people have a point when they are presenting statistics, but they have made this point in error. Statistics aren't something you're only supposed to use for the one conclusion someone wants you to draw from them. >Again, it's not just about the frequency of encounters, it's about the nature of them. On any given day I encounter more strangers than I do friends and family. You have fewer man-hours of encounters with strangers than you do with people you know, even if the absolute number of the strangers is higher. (And you shouldn't be invoking "friends and family", since that isn't the same as "people you know".)
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > It's quite common that people have a point when they are presenting statistics, but they have made this point in error. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at. > You have fewer man-hours of encounters with strangers than you do with people you know You can only speak for yourself, this is not true for everybody.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    I’m trying to imagine a building or office manager using these stats as a defense against his or her failure to protect employees from a trespasser. “That assault happened but it was really unlikely so I should be in the clear” You do not allow a situation like this to occur. If it does, there is a serious problem with your security. Period.

by Jiro 5y ago

ModernMech 5y ago

The lopsided nature of the numbers is not an accident. That half of all sexual assaults and rapes occur at the hands of intimate partners and family is reflective of the nature of these crimes -- usually they are perpetrated when the assailant has isolated his victim, many times starting from a place of trust. The point of noting that 90% figure is not so you can come up with some sort of Bayesian probability of your getting assaulted based on population level statistics. It's to shift the narrative of the nature of sexual assault and rape to something more reflective of the reality of these crimes in practice. You even see it here in this thread, the idea that homeless people are lurking in the street ready to rape and assault you if you make the mistake of offering them kindness. But that's not how 90%+ of these crimes actually happen in practice, so why should our first response to the homeless be one of profound distrust? > I'm pretty sure that more people are killed by slipping in the bathtub than by falling into a volcano. You should not conclude that falling into a volcano is safer than slipping in a bathtub, because people encounter bathtubs a lot more and you have not corrected your figures for frequency of encounters. Again, it's not just about the frequency of encounters, it's about the nature of them. On any given day I encounter more strangers than I do friends and family. But my interactions with strangers are not conducive to the crimes of rape and sexual assault. Friends, family, and acquaintances work to gain your trust before they violate it. If we really want to get into it, then the thing to watch out for is not stranger versus familiar status of a person, but whether they direct certain manipulative behaviors toward you.

Jiro 5y ago
>The point of noting that 90% figure is not so you can come up with some sort of Bayesian probability of your getting assaulted based on population level statistics. It's quite common that people have a point when they are presenting statistics, but they have made this point in error. Statistics aren't something you're only supposed to use for the one conclusion someone wants you to draw from them. >Again, it's not just about the frequency of encounters, it's about the nature of them. On any given day I encounter more strangers than I do friends and family. You have fewer man-hours of encounters with strangers than you do with people you know, even if the absolute number of the strangers is higher. (And you shouldn't be invoking "friends and family", since that isn't the same as "people you know".)
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > It's quite common that people have a point when they are presenting statistics, but they have made this point in error. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at. > You have fewer man-hours of encounters with strangers than you do with people you know You can only speak for yourself, this is not true for everybody.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  I’m trying to imagine a building or office manager using these stats as a defense against his or her failure to protect employees from a trespasser. “That assault happened but it was really unlikely so I should be in the clear” You do not allow a situation like this to occur. If it does, there is a serious problem with your security. Period.