4 ms·

> That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Yes, clearly it's going to be somewhere over 14%. I'm mainly critiquing the lazy reporting here. In reality t

by avar 2y ago

> That's not how statistical extrapolation works. Yes, clearly it's going to be somewhere over 14%. I'm mainly critiquing the lazy reporting here. In reality that "59%" number is a wild guess, and should be reported as such. > Here's a recent study that uses modern statistical modelling methods to extrapolate actual harassment rates from reporting rates that suffer strongly from self-selection bias in a similar environment It's really not in a similar environment at all. That study is about estimating the rates of harassment, assault etc. of professional fisheries observers. I.e. independently employed "fisheries narcs" (my paraphrasing) who are dropped onto a fishing vessel for a limited time. "Upon returning from deployment, all observers are debriefed to ensure data quality and integrity". That's a much more controlled dataset than "I hung out in Antarctica for a year, and I and 1/4 of the people that were there with me responded to this survey long afterwards, for whatever reason". Even then, they have huge error bars on their 95% confidence intervals, e.g. as noted by this revealing paragraph: > "Our estimates of observer victimization among years indicate that 0.4 to 1.8% of observers experienced assault, 22 to 34% experienced intimidation, coercion, and hostile work environments, and 9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment". So, e.g. 9%-43%. That's a pretty huge difference. In any case, we're way into the weeds here. Nothing I'm saying here is calling into question the the important underlying question here, that it certainly seems that the Antarctic program has some pretty screwed up problems with harassment etc., and how they're dealing with it. I was mainly critiquing the lazy reporting of that study, i.e. to cherry-pick some overly-specific (but ultimately wildly extrapolated) percentage like 59%, and running with that, when (as I quoted above) the very study itself you're quoting is telling you it can't and shouldn't be used like that. It's doubly unfortunate because if you page through that NSF study, there really are some pretty revealing quotes in some of the free-form answers submitted as part of the survey, clearly from people who've had a lot of time to think about and reflect on the issues they encountered in Antarctica. This one in particular stuck with me (I looked up the full quote just now, several days later): We can’t really have a zero-tolerance policy on assault and harassment because for 8.5 months there are no planes unless there is a really serious emergency. And I don’t think the program will ever fly planes in to get people out who have assaulted or harassed people. The issues with it are far too many. So, since we can’t have a zero-tolerance policy[...] Those sorts of constraints seem to both drive a lot of the problems with places like Antarctica, as well as well as being a big part of why certain people are drawn to work in those places.

petsfed 1y ago
That mandatory debriefing was part of the reason why the data was better. That's what I'm saying. If the relevant Antarctic authorities were performing an end-of-season debrief with each and every employee, following the paradigm used for marine fisheries observers, they might go from "59%, but some punter can claim its actually 14%" to "actually its like 70%, and here's the mountains of data to prove it". I specifically referenced the marine-fisheries example because, outside of grievous injury or death, the observers cannot leave until the captain of the boat they're narc'ing (your words) on chooses to return to port, and only if the captain of that boat returns to a port they can easily go home from. Which is a pretty serious problem when the harasser/assaulter is the captain. The analogy to Antarctica is pretty strong in that light.
- avar 1y ago
  > That mandatory debriefing was part of the reason why the data was better. That's what I'm saying. Indeed, and the NSF study notes the limitations of its voluntary survey methodology. But I don't think it's going to be as easy as your "[...]repeat the original study in light of the suggested methods just published". That study leans heavily into something the NSF can't easily replicate, e.g. all data they got from military personnel is voluntary. > they might go from "59%, but some punter can claim its actually 14%" to "actually its like 70%, and here's the mountains of data to prove it". Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it's rather telling that you think the number would go up under further scrutiny. I'm not saying it will or it won't, but neither study we're discussing supports that conclusion, as shown e.g. by the error bars in the one you linked to. E.g. the "9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment" line. In that case 9-26% is as likely as 26-43%, if we accept the rest of their methodology. To speculate, I'd think the NSF methodology in particular would lead to a higher extrapolated than actual rate. Presumably someone who's been the victim of sexual harassment or assault would be more inclined to participate in a time consuming survey to have their voice heard. Whereas someone who had an entirely uneventful year (at least an that front) in Antarctica would be more inclined to skip it. In addition to that, the NSF survey in particular does a bad job in conflating questions like "did X happen to you?" v.s. "...or anyone you knew, heard of etc.". If you attempted to measure e.g. theft with those sorts of questions you'd end up with inflated numbers. > [...]The analogy to Antarctica is pretty strong in that light. Somewhat, but it also breaks down in other ways, e.g. McMurdo has around 200-1200 people depending on the season (winter v.s. summer).

by avar 2y ago

petsfed 1y ago

That mandatory debriefing was part of the reason why the data was better. That's what I'm saying. If the relevant Antarctic authorities were performing an end-of-season debrief with each and every employee, following the paradigm used for marine fisheries observers, they might go from "59%, but some punter can claim its actually 14%" to "actually its like 70%, and here's the mountains of data to prove it". I specifically referenced the marine-fisheries example because, outside of grievous injury or death, the observers cannot leave until the captain of the boat they're narc'ing (your words) on chooses to return to port, and only if the captain of that boat returns to a port they can easily go home from. Which is a pretty serious problem when the harasser/assaulter is the captain. The analogy to Antarctica is pretty strong in that light.

avar 1y ago
> That mandatory debriefing was part of the reason why the data was better. That's what I'm saying. Indeed, and the NSF study notes the limitations of its voluntary survey methodology. But I don't think it's going to be as easy as your "[...]repeat the original study in light of the suggested methods just published". That study leans heavily into something the NSF can't easily replicate, e.g. all data they got from military personnel is voluntary. > they might go from "59%, but some punter can claim its actually 14%" to "actually its like 70%, and here's the mountains of data to prove it". Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it's rather telling that you think the number would go up under further scrutiny. I'm not saying it will or it won't, but neither study we're discussing supports that conclusion, as shown e.g. by the error bars in the one you linked to. E.g. the "9 to 43% experienced sexual harassment" line. In that case 9-26% is as likely as 26-43%, if we accept the rest of their methodology. To speculate, I'd think the NSF methodology in particular would lead to a higher extrapolated than actual rate. Presumably someone who's been the victim of sexual harassment or assault would be more inclined to participate in a time consuming survey to have their voice heard. Whereas someone who had an entirely uneventful year (at least an that front) in Antarctica would be more inclined to skip it. In addition to that, the NSF survey in particular does a bad job in conflating questions like "did X happen to you?" v.s. "...or anyone you knew, heard of etc.". If you attempted to measure e.g. theft with those sorts of questions you'd end up with inflated numbers. > [...]The analogy to Antarctica is pretty strong in that light. Somewhat, but it also breaks down in other ways, e.g. McMurdo has around 200-1200 people depending on the season (winter v.s. summer).