Advertiser Content
Conversation Between Corvus of the Black Night and ANARCHit3cht
1 to 9 of 9
  1. Corvus of the Black Night
    January 9th, 2015 2:47 PM
    Corvus of the Black Night
    I understand that, however, if I cannot replicate the results, and there are no way I can access and assess for myself whether or not the conclusion is valid, then I am going to be skeptical and search for my own answers. Essentially, I'm a cynic, I have standards to what I'm willing to believe from being told - it needs to stand up to accepted evidence, such as crime reports.

    I think what's being misunderstood here is that the 1 in 6 thing is an interpretation of data, (and so is the stuff that I did). The difference between what I did and what RAINN did is that RAINN did not post how they came to that conclusion. There is no dry statistic that says "1 in 6 women are raped in their lifetimes", the statistics only contain what number of people were victimized in a particular timeframe. If they have, I don't mind reading it, although I need to get going soon.

    If they are peer reviewed, I should be able to read their methods. However, they don't provide them, so I would rather rely on the base statistics provided by the government since they are the straight arrest/claim/whatever records essentially.
  2. ANARCHit3cht
    January 9th, 2015 2:35 PM
    Not defensive at all. And they were peer reviewed, considering multiple of those sources arrive at the same/similar conclusions. Just because they don't correlate with the point you're trying to make doesn't mean they'e invaild.
  3. ANARCHit3cht
    January 9th, 2015 2:04 PM
    Your math is pervasive because you made assumptions for "easier" math that are naturally going to correlate with the data you're trying to represent. I'm not saying that the 1/6 is indicative of the actual number by any mean--finding the actual number will be impossible.

    It's also not the kind of situation where you can simply choose not to include people that weren't in your original sample group because they are still people who very much factor into the equation. If you were doing it for merely one year, then yes, you could do that. But you're trying to do show it as time passes and you can't increase one side of the equation without increasing the other.
  4. Corvus of the Black Night
    January 9th, 2015 2:03 PM
    Corvus of the Black Night
    I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the math you used to reach that is none less pervasive than using 1 out of statements.
    Uh, those statements are derived mathematically, it's simply that the wording is far more persuasive.

    You also can't simply choose to ignore the changing number of your population.
    Sometimes in models it is far easier to represent a possible flaw in logic if you make a few agreed-upon assumptions. If I was taking into consideration the rate of change, I would likely need to use calculus to be able to determine the exact "1 in" ratio. Considering that this wasn't even my desired goal (it was only to show that the 1 in 6 is likely incorrect) it's not necessary to adapt the change in population.

    While it is your right completely to interpret it as invalid, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions from it aren't useful. Again, the fact that the rate of change has been decreasing only helps encourage this point.

    Your comments about the Asian people is pretty irrelevant, because I formed my model around a longitudinal study, which does not take into account individuals who are born after the beginning of the study, but rather follows the lives of a set number of people for a period of time - in the model, 80 years. Longitudinal studies are often used in psychology and sociology for very useful and large amounts of information on a specific group of individuals.
  5. ANARCHit3cht
    January 9th, 2015 1:42 PM
    I don't disagree with what you're saying, but the math you used to reach that is none less pervasive than using 1 out of statements. You also can't simply choose to ignore the changing number of your population. For simplicity's sake lets say there are 100 Asian people. 20 of them commit a crime. So you say 20% of Asian people are criminals. 64 of those Asian people die. Of the remaining 46, 20 of them are criminals, making for roughly 43%. Well now more Asian people are born and more of them die for a net change of +5 people. So now there is 69 people, but of those 20 that were criminals, 11 of them died while only only 2 more people were classified as criminals for a total of 11 criminals out of 69 people. Or, 22 criminals out of (at minimum) 116 people so that would make roughly 17% criminals.
  6. Corvus of the Black Night
    January 9th, 2015 12:07 PM
    Corvus of the Black Night
    Then stop criticizing the mathematics as if you don't understand it and instead criticize the conclusions that are drawn.

    The population isn't an even 50% for either gender.
    I apologize, it is 49.2% male and 50.8% female. Rounding to 50% is perfectly reasonable.

    The rate of change isn't steady and if you're going to calculate it over time, you're going to have to compensate for it by understanding that the rate of change is not a constant thing
    This point was already addressed by the assumptions made though. Not to mention that the rate of change has been decreasing progressively over the last 20 years, which would inflate values, not deflate them - further burying the "1 in 6" myth. So yes, it's true that rate of change does change, but the measurement of this rate of change is actually greatly against the 1-in-6 statistic's favour.

    The number of women changes every year, as does the number of women raped each year.
    The 160,000,000 is assumed as a base value of women existing starting at time = 0. It is true that the population of women changes every year, however, women born after this point are not included. The model is based on the idea of watching this base 160,000,000 women from their births to their deaths, and seeing how many in this population. This is modeled off of longitudinal studies.

    As such, the only way this population can be changed in quantity is by these individuals dying. By taking the average female lifespan to be 80 years old, an approximate "1 in whatever" statistic can be calculated. The limitations of the viability of this so-called statistic have been outlined to promote transparency, something that a lot of these so-called rape statistics do not do.

    Essentially, I'm running a simplified simulation of taking 160,000,000 individual potential victims and applying 200,000 victims through every cycle of a year, to receive the values that I did.

    The difference between the 1 in 6 statistic and the statistics that I am drawing is that the statistics that I am drawing from my models are created to show why the 1 in 6 statistic is likely exaggerated. By proving that it is physically impossible for that statistic to exist, it destroys the claim that this many women will encounter rape. Because of the social implications of such a statistic, it can help reduce fear in women which is heavily instilled in such statistics. Outside of this purpose, my statistics hold no credence and only exist to show why such calculations are not clear or even possibly manipulated. Essentially, I do not tell people they have a 1 in 24 chance in being raped, I am saying that based on current information and a specific model, and walking through my steps for observers to understand, that the 1 in 6 statistic cannot be correct.

    It should also be noted that 1 in [whatever] statistics are displayed in that way to be more dramatic, which is a persuasive tactic. Far more women are concerned about rape if it's 1 in 6 rather than approx. 18%, even though they're the same amount.
  7. ANARCHit3cht
    January 9th, 2015 11:47 AM
    No, I get it--and you're math is sound, but the assumptions you've made skew the data far too greatly. The population isn't an even 50% for either gender. The rate of change isn't steady and if you're going to calculate it over time, you're going to have to compensate for it by understanding that the rate of change is not a constant thing. The number of women changes every year, as does the number of women raped each year.

    I'd also like to point out that when the 1/6th statistic was calculated for a single year and based off a sample population and that calculation in and of itself could have many issues.
  8. Corvus of the Black Night
    January 9th, 2015 11:13 AM
    Corvus of the Black Night
    There are no arbitrary mathematics. It is something called a linear model.

    In high school, you probably learned about how ax+b = y, which is the formula for a slope. a and b are constants. This formula however also models a constant rate of change.

    For a simple and less personal example, you can use this to model how long it takes to fill a swimming pool. Let's say that you add 10 gallons a minute to the pool, and the pool is an Olympic size swimming pool, with 660,000 gallons. You can use this simple linear model to figure out how many minutes it will take to fill the pool.

    The mathematics here is

    10 * x + 0 = 660000;

    To solve for x, it would be 660,000 divided by 10 which is 66,000 minutes (45 days, so you're going to want a bit of a faster pump).

    Similarly, the model I produced is very similar. It is not 100% accurate, but I lined out possible important factors that would likely adjust the actual value considerably. I made the following assumptions to ensure that a simple linear model could be used:

    *That the rate of change is steady, and is the total number of victimizations a year in 2008.
    *That the base population at the beginning is 160,000,000, or half of the current US population.
    *That other factors will not affect these issues.
    *That no individuals are raped twice.

    The idea behind the model is very simple. With the base population of 160,000,000, we model tracking their lives. Each year, 200,000 of these individuals become victims of rape. For the sake of the model, these victims are mutually exclusive (in reality they aren't but that actually inflates the value).

    Our model is mathematically represented as such:

    200000 * x + 0 = y;

    Because we are adding 200,000 rape victims every year, the ratio of rape victims to the total population increases every year. The first year, this ratio is 1 victim per 800, then it becomes 1 in 400, and as it goes on and on, this ratio increases.

    Since we want to know how many years it takes to have the "1 in 6" statistic, we want to figure out how long it takes when the number of victims equals a sixth of the population, which is approximately 27,000,000. Now that we have a y value, we can determine how long it takes to reach that value, at a constant rate of 200,000 rapes per year.

    200000 * x + 0 = 27000000;

    Solving for y would be 270000000 divided by 200000 which is 137. You can perform this on your computer's calculator as a check. This means that, at a rate of 200,000 rapes a year, it would take 137 years for the population of 160,000,000 individuals to reach a ratio of 1 in 6, which implies 27,000,000 victims. No human has ever lived 137 years. It is logical to therefore to conclude that the 1 in 6 statistic is too high.

    We can solve for the value based on how many years they lived by simply setting x to 80.

    200000 * 80 + 0 = y;

    y would equal 16,000,000; when this value is compared to the total population, it is exactly 1 in 10.

    Since the value includes victims of sexual assault and attempted rape, if we use the actual value for recorded rapes, which is 85,100, the calculation becomes

    85100 * 80 + 0 = y

    y would equal 6,808,000, which is about 1 in 23.5 of the female population.

    The other statistics regarding assault and robbery were calculated similarly.

    I cannot explain this any simpler, if you do not understand I highly recommend you study up on algebra, mathematical models and statistics. If you cannot understand this you really do not have any idea what you're talking about. It's not an insult, frankly, I think most people aren't aware of their own mistakes in statistical interpretation, since most people don't understand what statistics mean or aren't good at applying mathematical models.
  9. ANARCHit3cht
    January 9th, 2015 10:44 AM
    Please explain to me your arbitrary mathematics, it still makes no sense to me.