Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72401 times)

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1050 on: October 03, 2018, 02:43:16 AM »
And one more time, Let's review what 5% false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 5% applies to 950, the subset, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

No. You're getting this wrong and it's not because of the math.

It's 2-10% *of rape allegations* that are false.

It is NOT that 2-10% of innocent men are accused. Go check your source and I'm sure you'll see that it says 2-10% *of allegations*.

That means you do not apply it to the population. You apply it to the number of rape allegations that happened. So if there were 17 real allegations of rape there should be 0-2 false accusations. You take 2-10% of 17, because that is the number of allegations. And your statistic is a percent of allegations, not a percent of a population of people.

This is why they teach word problems in school... :-)

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1051 on: October 03, 2018, 03:11:41 AM »
anisotropy - I don't doubt you because we disagree on Muslim immigration. I doubt you because I think you're intellectually dishonest.

And I can see what you're doing with these numbers. You're taking "5% of accusations are false" and "this test is 95% accurate" to be equal concepts, when they're not. The data you're starting with deals only with accusations, or positive tests, and the 5% number applies here. "This test is 95% accurate" and "95% of positive results on this test are correct" are two very different statements, but you've muddied the waters to produce the results you want.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1052 on: October 03, 2018, 05:37:11 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1053 on: October 03, 2018, 05:41:12 AM »
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

ďIf you make the same claim to me today,Ē he said, ďit would be scorched-earth. I donít care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, Iíve worked too hard for it, Iíve earned it, you canít just blow me up like that.Ē - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.

Which makes no difference in how he said he would feel about accusations.  Which is the point. SMH
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 05:58:40 AM by Cache_Stash »

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1054 on: October 03, 2018, 05:49:27 AM »
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that).

You're correct.  Followed by anger.  The stages can come more than one at a time and there can be reversion, as well.  They can also come in a different order.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

The point was, anger is a substantial part of grieving process and has nothing to do with your your point but everything to do with my point.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1055 on: October 03, 2018, 05:57:24 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.
hi Ben!

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1056 on: October 03, 2018, 06:30:55 AM »
And one more time, Let's review what 5% false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 5% applies to 950, the subset, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

No. You're getting this wrong and it's not because of the math.

It's 2-10% *of rape allegations* that are false.

It is NOT that 2-10% of innocent men are accused. Go check your source and I'm sure you'll see that it says 2-10% *of allegations*.

That means you do not apply it to the population. You apply it to the number of rape allegations that happened. So if there were 17 real allegations of rape there should be 0-2 false accusations. You take 2-10% of 17, because that is the number of allegations. And your statistic is a percent of allegations, not a percent of a population of people.

This is why they teach word problems in school... :-)

This is what I was trying to point out...

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4598
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1057 on: October 03, 2018, 06:56:11 AM »

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.
Per research done on young men (normally freshman and sophomore college students) the repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each.  The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse. Lisak, 2002.
Studies of unreported rape, mainly on college samples, indicate that from 6% to 14.9% of men report acts that meet legal definitions for rape or attempted rape (Collings, 1994; Greendlinger & Byrne, 1987; Koss, Leonard, Beezley, & Oros, 1985;
Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Krahe, 1998; Lisak & Roth, 1988; Merrill et aI., 1998; Mosher & Anderson, 1986; Ouimette & Riggs, 1998; Rubenzahl & Corcoran, 1998).

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4598
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1058 on: October 03, 2018, 07:02:47 AM »

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1059 on: October 03, 2018, 07:09:01 AM »
You can't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative because the false negative needs to be based on the population as a whole, while the false accusation rate is based on a subset of the population.


I didn't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative, I used non-reported rape as false-negative, which is 2/3. You must have meant false positive.

Like you said, the false accusation (false positive) rate is based on a subset of the population, ie, the "not rapists", not the final result.

Let's review what false accusation means,: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 2-10% applies to 950, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent. If we go by your table, the false accusation rate is then 1/950, not the 2-10% range.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand/wrap our heads around:
Given 2-10% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 26%.

In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.

Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1060 on: October 03, 2018, 07:24:12 AM »

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Quote
False report
A false report is a reported crime to a law enforcement agency that an investigation factually proves never occurred.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

The definition of false accusation is not entirely agreed upon which is why the range (2-10%) is significant, but as far as I can tell most studies are referring to the % of cases which were concluded to be false.


pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7860
  • Age: 62
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1061 on: October 03, 2018, 07:36:11 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes. It’s reminding me of Economics 101, where there are so many assumptions that the conclusions make no sense.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1062 on: October 03, 2018, 07:42:41 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes. Itís reminding me of Economics 101, where there are so many assumptions that the conclusions make no sense.

Please, don't let anisotropy reduce your opinion of statistics.  He's just using them poorly.  Statistics can actually be very useful when applied correctly.

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7860
  • Age: 62
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1063 on: October 03, 2018, 07:52:04 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes. It’s reminding me of Economics 101, where there are so many assumptions that the conclusions make no sense.

Please, don't let anisotropy reduce your opinion of statistics.  He's just using them poorly.  Statistics can actually be very useful when applied correctly.

Agreed. Just not here.

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1064 on: October 03, 2018, 08:00:47 AM »
Bayesian math can actually be tremendously useful as a tool for understanding the concept of false positives, particularly when looking at rare outcomes.

If a test is 95% accurate and administered to an entire population, and the thing it's testing for is present in 1% of the population, then you'll get four or five false positives for every true positive. Imagine a 200-rider bike race, in which two riders are doping, and at the end everyone is tested. The two dopers are almost certainly going to return true positives; however, the 198 clean riders will also produce nine or ten false positives. This is what anisotropy is getting at; most positives in this scenario are actually false.

However, if 95% of positives on the test are accurate (which is what we're actually dealing with), then we get a very different result. When that's the test, we only get two positives, and they're almost guaranteed to be the two doped riders. This is the case we're actually faced with.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1065 on: October 03, 2018, 08:07:00 AM »
Yes! you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random. They are not random. Not every man in the US is accused of rape, sexual assault, which is what your scenario presumes. And the situations and people who bring false accusations (teens caught having sex and so make up a story and parents press charges, someone in trouble with the law, someone with mental health problems) don't have any similarity with Ford's situation. And we know she told people about her and Kavanaugh YEARS before the SCOTUS nominee, so unless the "left wing crazies" have a time machine at a disposal, a conspiracy theory is stupid.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1066 on: October 03, 2018, 08:21:33 AM »
Yes! you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random. They are not random. Not every man in the US is accused of rape, sexual assault, which is what your scenario presumes. And the situations and people who bring false accusations (teens caught having sex and so make up a story and parents press charges, someone in trouble with the law, someone with mental health problems) don't have any similarity with Ford's situation. And we know she told people about her and Kavanaugh YEARS before the SCOTUS nominee, so unless the "left wing crazies" have a time machine at a disposal, a conspiracy theory is stupid.

Left wing crazies with a time machine could explain Trump. There are a lot of time machine narratives based on someone travelling back to fix somethine (e.g. kill Hitler), but they end up making everything worse (e.g. the nazis get a better leader and win the war).

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1067 on: October 03, 2018, 09:09:41 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.
+1

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1068 on: October 03, 2018, 09:33:01 AM »
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that).

You're correct.  Followed by anger.  The stages can come more than one at a time and there can be reversion, as well.  They can also come in a different order.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

The point was, anger is a substantial part of grieving process and has nothing to do with your your point but everything to do with my point.

Well one would have to evaluate said behavior on a nonpartisan basis (you have on more than one occasion called out liberals). You have an obvious bias which would explain why your original assertion about grief stages was incorrect. Of course his behavior also falls into the realm of denial and defensiveness. Extremely defensive really. That's not a stage of grief but can be a sign of lying. I'm no expert and neither are you so neither of our opinions means anything. I will say too his behavior has been called out now by several hundred law professors. That doesn't look good for Kavanaugh.   

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1069 on: October 03, 2018, 09:48:46 AM »
Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Right, this is the key point that anisotropy has missed in his poorly formulated statistical model.  He's taken an analysis of infection rates and applied it to rape allegations, but totally overlooked that that infection and testing are uncorrelated, and rape and alleged rape are not.  Anisotropy's analysis is only valid if you randomly allege rape to everyone (in order get lots of false positives of innocent people), just like you would randomly test everyone for infection.  The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.

And then on top of that fundamental misunderstanding, he's artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.  This assumption guarantees that most accusations will be false, just by the nature of the problem setup.  This has no bearing on reality, even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables.  Which as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, they are not.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand:
Given 2-10% (avg 5%) false accusation rate (in the not rapist subset), the likelihood someone actually is a rapist, in the entire population, based on one accusation is 26%.

No!  So much no.  Restating this error more clearly does not make it correct.  This is some Breitbart-level BS.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 09:57:22 AM by sol »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1070 on: October 03, 2018, 09:49:34 AM »
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that).

You're correct.  Followed by anger.  The stages can come more than one at a time and there can be reversion, as well.  They can also come in a different order.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

The point was, anger is a substantial part of grieving process and has nothing to do with your your point but everything to do with my point.

Even if we assume that the anger is due to the grieving process, it does not tell us if that is in response to the trauma of being found out or being wrongly accused. An isolated incidence of anger also does not tell us if it is part of him grieving, being a generally belligerent person, or a craft piece of courtroom drama. Honestly, it is most likely some Venn diagram of all 3 (noting that in his professional life he is not known to be belligerent, but has described incidences of being so).

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1071 on: October 03, 2018, 09:59:02 AM »
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

ďIf you make the same claim to me today,Ē he said, ďit would be scorched-earth. I donít care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, Iíve worked too hard for it, Iíve earned it, you canít just blow me up like that.Ē - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.

Which makes no difference in how he said he would feel about accusations.  Which is the point. SMH

Honestly, I thought his spot was pretty funny and played more to the way in which he responded than to actually saying he was guilty as charged. You implied that it was hyprocritical of Matt Damon to spoof Kavanaugh because Damon said that he would fight hard to defend his own name. The presumption was that Damon assumed he was innocent. If he believes that the spoofing on SNL is justified, then it is not hypocritical. If Damon saw that Kavanaugh was innocent and fighting for his name and lampooned him specifically as a sexual predator and for then defending his name, then it would be hypocritical.

If you want to point out hypocrisy on the left, Keith Ellison is much, much more fertile ground. The DNC should be pushing for investigation there.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1072 on: October 03, 2018, 10:02:42 AM »
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

True. But part of what makes this forum so fun is that there are at least 3 PhDs (and maybe more) with a background in statistics in this thread that have already chimed in to intelligently discuss the statistics.

So far it has mostly been soft lies of omission instead of damned lies. ;)

laserlady

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1073 on: October 03, 2018, 10:06:22 AM »
In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.

Yes, this is how the math works out given your statistical assumptions.  If only 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false -- your own figure -- then there's a 95% chance that someone who has been accused of rape is actually a rapist.  The 0.1% false accusation rate that I calculated from your assumptions is the false accusation rate for the male population as a whole.  Based on your assumptions (5% of men are rapists, only 1/3 of rapes are reported, and 1/20 rape accusations turns out to be false), then the odds that a random man in the population will be accused of rape is only 0.1%.  Again, you're trying to solve for X when we already know X.  If X is the percentage of men accused of rape who are actually rapists, then we already know that X is 5% because that's the assumption you've chosen to use in this stats problem (that 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false).  Using X, we can solve for Y -- the percentage of men in the population as a whole who will be falsely accused of rape --  and this number is indeed 0.1%  If the math is done right on your statistical assumptions, it's actually very damning to your cause. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1074 on: October 03, 2018, 10:20:21 AM »
In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.

Yes, this is how the math works out given your statistical assumptions.  If only 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false -- your own figure -- then there's a 95% chance that someone who has been accused of rape is actually a rapist.  The 0.1% false accusation rate that I calculated from your assumptions is the false accusation rate for the male population as a whole.  Based on your assumptions (5% of men are rapists, only 1/3 of rapes are reported, and 1/20 rape accusations turns out to be false), then the odds that a random man in the population will be accused of rape is only 0.1%.  Again, you're trying to solve for X when we already know X.  If X is the percentage of men accused of rape who are actually rapists, then we already know that X is 5% because that's the assumption you've chosen to use in this stats problem (that 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false).  Using X, we can solve for Y -- the percentage of men in the population as a whole who will be falsely accused of rape --  and this number is indeed 0.1%  If the math is done right on your statistical assumptions, it's actually very damning to your cause.

Or to put it back into real numbers (using anisotropy's own inputs)
For every 1,000 men:

1 out of 1,000 is falsely accused of rape
17 of every 1,000 is correctly accused of rape
51 of every 1,000 committed rape, but it was not reported

From those outputs, what is the most pressing societal concern?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 10:28:15 AM by nereo »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1075 on: October 03, 2018, 10:24:48 AM »
The false accusation, of course.

Because men's stories still matter more than women's in this society.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1076 on: October 03, 2018, 10:26:37 AM »
When will society finally start punishing women for using their feminine wiles to drive men to such actions?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1077 on: October 03, 2018, 10:50:47 AM »
When will society finally start punishing women for using their feminine wiles to drive men to such actions?

Right after we start punishing democrats for trying to hold sexual abusers accountable?  We need to have priorities, after all.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1078 on: October 03, 2018, 10:51:19 AM »
Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Right, this is the key point that anisotropy has missed in his poorly formulated statistical model.  He's taken an analysis of infection rates and applied it to rape allegations, but totally overlooked that that infection and testing are uncorrelated, and rape and alleged rape are not.  Anisotropy's analysis is only valid if you randomly allege rape to everyone (in order get lots of false positives of innocent people), just like you would randomly test everyone for infection.  The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.

And then on top of that fundamental misunderstanding, he's artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.  This assumption guarantees that most accusations will be false, just by the nature of the problem setup.  This has no bearing on reality, even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables.  Which as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, they are not.

Hi all,

I can see many still do not grasp the reason why 2-10% should be applied to the (not-rapist) subset. I will focus on answering those that understood it, at least partially.

The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.
This is true, what I formulated here is if we picked anyone at random without paying any attention whatsoever regarding the specifics of each persons case. Of course it doesnt work if only sick people/actual rapists were to get tested, because that would mean you are dealing with a completely different population composition (rapists only). Statistically it would translate to 0 false positive, which is not useful nor appropriate when determining the likelihood of someone being actually guilty when we are dealing with a random person in the population.

does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?
What we can do, is we expand the population to include the entire US male population, as long as the composition doesnt change, 5% rapists 95% not-rapists, we will get the same result, try it out. Therefore this criticism is invalid.

artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.
my chosen rate of false accusation is 2-10%, avg 5%. What did you mean with "true" incidence of rape? True positives? It is low because 1. rapist population is relatively low, and 2. false negative rate (non-reported incident) being 2/3. This result directly spawns from these realistic/researched rates. You can tweak it if you want.

even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables. | you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random
Of ALL the criticisms, I find this the most relevant. Some people are good at statistics here! What you are really asking is does the 2-10% fp rate really apply to the "not rapist" subset, because surely they would be accused less frequently than a real rapist? It is true the 2-10% remain an estimate, past studies put the figure between 0.5% to 90%. Your guess on this is as good as mine. If you can provide studies that shed more light, I would be happy to reformulate the scenario.

Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

We can also sit here and quibble if treating the Kavanaguh case as a random sample (the way i formulated it) is appropriate, but the method is sound.

In the absence of physical evidence, I think what I did here is relevant by seeing it as a random sample.

Finally runbikerun,
You say i am intellectually dishonest. But let's look at your bikers doping test example. I do not possess knowledge on how bikers are drug tested, so i went searching on line. This is what i found
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cyclists-are-drug-tested-2015-9#once-riders-return-from-the-restroom-to-the-doping-control-station-they-sit-back-down-with-the-dco-who-checks-whether-the-urine-sample-is-suitable-10

"If the sample is suitable, the DCO tells the rider to select a "urine kit," a box that contains two small glass bottles into which riders will pour their urine. The rider is instructed to check that the bottles are correctly labeled and that there is nothing inside them.

One bottle is labeled "A" and the other "B." Later, after a lab analysis, if the A sample tests positive for a banned substance, the rider has the right to have the B sample tested."


This sounds exactly like what i formulated here: one positive result gives you low certainty, but two positive result boosts it to much higher certainty. And whats more, its super prevalent.

"Teddy Cutler of SportingIntelligence.com recently took a an excellent and detailed look at all the top cyclists from 1998 through 2013 and whether or not they have ever been linked to blood doping or have links to doping or a doctor linked to blood doping.

During this 16-year period, 12 Tour de France races were won by cyclists who were confirmed dopers. In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters."


https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1

Your arguments here are thoroughly debunked, doping was found to be common, and the drug test method is similar to what i formulated here. Together with how you thought the conditional rates from one set of statistics would apply to a wholly different scenario (wrongful conviction) your thinking pattern is hilariously original to say the least. I called you banal once, but it's clear to me now you don't lack originality per se, you lack assiduity and cognition.

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1079 on: October 03, 2018, 11:00:46 AM »
This really is truly ridiculous. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with someone who writes four exhaustively researched paragraphs on a hypothetical scenario drawn up for illustration, then says literally nothing about the actual argument being made except insults from a thesaurus and a laughable air of superiority. I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1080 on: October 03, 2018, 11:07:08 AM »
even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables. | you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random
Of ALL the criticisms, I find this the most relevant. Some people are good at statistics here! What you are really asking is does the 2-10% fp rate really apply to the "not rapist" subset, because surely they would be accused less frequently than a real rapist?

More accurately, I think, is not whether the 2-10% fp rate apply to nonrapists, but whether it applies equally to rapists and nonrapists.  And the simple logical deduction here is that rapists get accused of rape far more often than norapists get accused of rate.  Because, you know, they're rapists.  You don't need math to figure that one out.

This is an entirely different conceptual model than a doctor testing a population for infection.  Your construct is inappropriate, because you've assumed everyone has been accused and some percentage of them are thus falsely accused, and that's not how rape allegations work. 

The initial and more obvious interpretation is correct in this case.  If you are already accused of rape (you have tested positive for infection), and 5% of positive tests are false postives, then you have a 95% chance of being a rapist (or being infected).  You can then skew that math by introducing extraneous assumptions, like that only 1% of people are actually infected, but you don't know that in this case and there is no need to make that assumption. 

You don't need to confuse it.  In the absence of any other information, if 5% of rape allegations are false and 95% are true, then in 100 people accused of rape we would expect 5 of them to be falsely accused and 95 to be correctly accused.  Your statistical approach is mathematically correct for a different problem, one that we are not discussing here and bears no resemblance to rape allegations.

Quote
Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

We are not dealing with a random sample, and your insistence to treat rape allegations as a random sample is the root of the problem.  Well, that and your choice of input variables.

I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

Don't be grumpy, rbr, it's just the internet.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1081 on: October 03, 2018, 11:10:46 AM »
Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Right, this is the key point that anisotropy has missed in his poorly formulated statistical model.  He's taken an analysis of infection rates and applied it to rape allegations, but totally overlooked that that infection and testing are uncorrelated, and rape and alleged rape are not.  Anisotropy's analysis is only valid if you randomly allege rape to everyone (in order get lots of false positives of innocent people), just like you would randomly test everyone for infection.  The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.

And then on top of that fundamental misunderstanding, he's artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.  This assumption guarantees that most accusations will be false, just by the nature of the problem setup.  This has no bearing on reality, even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables.  Which as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, they are not.

Hi all,

I can see many still do not grasp the reason why 2-10% should be applied to the (not-rapist) subset. I will focus on answering those that understood it, at least partially.

The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.
This is true, what I formulated here is if we picked anyone at random without paying any attention whatsoever regarding the specifics of each persons case. Of course it doesnt work if only sick people/actual rapists were to get tested, because that would mean you are dealing with a completely different population composition (rapists only). Statistically it would translate to 0 false positive, which is not useful nor appropriate when determining the likelihood of someone being actually guilty when we are dealing with a random person in the population.

does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?
What we can do, is we expand the population to include the entire US male population, as long as the composition doesnt change, 5% rapists 95% not-rapists, we will get the same result, try it out. Therefore this criticism is invalid.

artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.
my chosen rate of false accusation is 2-10%, avg 5%. What did you mean with "true" incidence of rape? True positives? It is low because 1. rapist population is relatively low, and 2. false negative rate (non-reported incident) being 2/3. This result directly spawns from these realistic/researched rates. You can tweak it if you want.

even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables. | you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random
Of ALL the criticisms, I find this the most relevant. Some people are good at statistics here! What you are really asking is does the 2-10% fp rate really apply to the "not rapist" subset, because surely they would be accused less frequently than a real rapist? It is true the 2-10% remain an estimate, past studies put the figure between 0.5% to 90%. Your guess on this is as good as mine. If you can provide studies that shed more light, I would be happy to reformulate the scenario.

Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

We can also sit here and quibble if treating the Kavanaguh case as a random sample (the way i formulated it) is appropriate, but the method is sound.

In the absence of physical evidence, I think what I did here is relevant by seeing it as a random sample.

Finally runbikerun,
You say i am intellectually dishonest. But let's look at your bikers doping test example. I do not possess knowledge on how bikers are drug tested, so i went searching on line. This is what i found
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cyclists-are-drug-tested-2015-9#once-riders-return-from-the-restroom-to-the-doping-control-station-they-sit-back-down-with-the-dco-who-checks-whether-the-urine-sample-is-suitable-10

"If the sample is suitable, the DCO tells the rider to select a "urine kit," a box that contains two small glass bottles into which riders will pour their urine. The rider is instructed to check that the bottles are correctly labeled and that there is nothing inside them.

One bottle is labeled "A" and the other "B." Later, after a lab analysis, if the A sample tests positive for a banned substance, the rider has the right to have the B sample tested."


This sounds exactly like what i formulated here: one positive result gives you low certainty, but two positive result boosts it to much higher certainty. And whats more, its super prevalent.

"Teddy Cutler of SportingIntelligence.com recently took a an excellent and detailed look at all the top cyclists from 1998 through 2013 and whether or not they have ever been linked to blood doping or have links to doping or a doctor linked to blood doping.

During this 16-year period, 12 Tour de France races were won by cyclists who were confirmed dopers. In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters."


https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1

Your arguments here are thoroughly debunked, doping was found to be common, and the drug test method is similar to what i formulated here. Together with how you thought the conditional rates from one set of statistics would apply to a wholly different scenario (wrongful conviction) your thinking pattern is hilariously original to say the least. I called you banal once, but it's clear to me now you don't lack originality per se, you lack assiduity and cognition.

Your still misusing your 2-10% statistic.  It is not the percentage of non-rapists who are accused of rape, it is the percentage of accusations that are determined to be false.  Seriously, dude, quit trying to misrepresent that statistic.

Quote
A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.[1][2]

ETA:  So, basically, even if your model were appropriate for this use, your using the wrong number for your false positive input because that's not what they were measuring when they came up with the 2-10% number.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 11:27:55 AM by shenlong55 »

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1082 on: October 03, 2018, 11:42:50 AM »
Quote
More accurately, I think, is not whether the 2-10% fp rate apply to nonrapists, but whether it applies equally to rapists and nonrapists.  And the simple logical deduction here is that rapists get accused of rape far more often than norapists get accused of rate.  Because, you know, they're rapists.  You don't need math to figure that one out.

This is an entirely different conceptual model than a doctor testing a population for infection.  Your construct is inappropriate, because you've assumed everyone has been accused and some percentage of them are thus falsely accused, and that's not how rape allegations work. 

The initial and more obvious interpretation is correct in this case.  If you are already accused of rape (you have tested positive for infection), and 5% of positive tests are false postives, then you have a 95% chance of being a rapist (or being infected).  You can then skew that math by introducing extraneous assumptions, like that only 1% of people are actually infected, but you don't know that in this case and there is no need to make that assumption. 

You don't need to confuse it.  In the absence of any other information, if 5% of rape allegations are false and 95% are true, then in 100 people accused of rape we would expect 5 of them to be falsely accused and 95 to be correctly accused.  Your statistical approach is mathematically correct for a different problem, one that we are not discussing here and bears no resemblance to rape allegations.


Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

Yes simple logical deduction would say the rates are not likely to be equal for the two groups, I am all for that. If you would like to provide a proper fp rate for the non rapist population i can take a look.

What you are implicitly implying when you treat the 5% false positive as the final outcome is this: There is no subset, the entire population consists of only rapists. This is clearly absurd. Do you really think breaking the population into subsets (rapists and not-rapists) are extraneous assumptions??

What i assumed is if one was accused by chance (random), again we can argue till the FBI result comes out if it applies here, but for the 10th time, in the absence of hard physical evidence, I can not place more weight on one party over another, because we are inherently bad at spotting liars (link upthread).

I understand absence of evidence does not equate absence of crime, but that's how our legal system works on, also why the wrongful conviction rate is so low (link upthread). 

Quote
This really is truly ridiculous. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with someone who writes four exhaustively researched paragraphs on a hypothetical scenario drawn up for illustration, then says literally nothing about the actual argument being made except insults from a thesaurus and a laughable air of superiority. I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

oh so i am a troll now? and it's just a hypothetical now? you seemed pretty certain of your case just a moment ago. I treat serious matters like this seriously, allegations should not be thrown around lightly in the absence of hard evidence. In fact, if you wish to participate in serious discussions, you should do your research before you show up and spew easily debunked bs like bike doping, false incarceration,etc. Run and Hide as you always do. Consider changing your name to runhiderun.

But just to amuse myself, i will do a 2x2 table with doping using stats from links upthread. 5% fp. I have no data on fn but conventional wisdom would suggest its between 10-20% given the fp being 5%. I am invoking the tradeoff of type I and type II for those of you following.

                              65% dope                      test yes                          test no
Real doper                     650                              520                                   130
normal bikers                 450                               23                                    427
                                   1000                              543                                 557

Test positive and actual doper: 520/543 = ~95%

It's not hard, runhiderun.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 11:49:30 AM by anisotropy »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1083 on: October 03, 2018, 11:50:11 AM »
Please adhere to the forum rules.  Attack an argument, not another poster (#2).
Thanks
~n~

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1084 on: October 03, 2018, 11:50:19 AM »
Can Kavanaugh sue and win a case against Ford for slander(because, you know, no one used a cell phone to record what did or did not happen)?

The answer appears to be no and I am a little confused as to why. I understand the biggest hurdle is he is now a public persona but the other problem is that he, like anyone else, would essentially have to prove a negative.
So if after moving into your house for 20 years your neighbors build a grind against you. At some point you become an official of your PTO or church group or just some minor local thing. Then you neighbor says 20 years ago, when you first moved in, that you (the man in this instance) ogled her with binoculars. The neighbors have defamed you and you family, yet you have no recourse???

Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

asiljoy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1085 on: October 03, 2018, 11:55:12 AM »
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

ďIf you make the same claim to me today,Ē he said, ďit would be scorched-earth. I donít care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, Iíve worked too hard for it, Iíve earned it, you canít just blow me up like that.Ē - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.

Which makes no difference in how he said he would feel about accusations.  Which is the point. SMH

Honestly, I thought his spot was pretty funny and played more to the way in which he responded than to actually saying he was guilty as charged. You implied that it was hyprocritical of Matt Damon to spoof Kavanaugh because Damon said that he would fight hard to defend his own name. The presumption was that Damon assumed he was innocent. If he believes that the spoofing on SNL is justified, then it is not hypocritical. If Damon saw that Kavanaugh was innocent and fighting for his name and lampooned him specifically as a sexual predator and for then defending his name, then it would be hypocritical.

If you want to point out hypocrisy on the left, Keith Ellison is much, much more fertile ground. The DNC should be pushing for investigation there.

Not sure what the DNC is doing, but the DFL (the party in MN) has pushed for an investigation: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/01/attorney-ellison-abuse-claim-unsubstantiated

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1086 on: October 03, 2018, 12:00:36 PM »
If you would like to provide a proper fp rate for the non rapist population i can take a look.

Using different inputs isn't going to help when the approach is fundamentally incorrect for the problem at hand.

Quote
What you are implicitly implying when you treat the 5% false positive as the final outcome is this: There is no subset, the entire population consists of only rapists.

No, I'm suggesting that 100% of the population of accused rapists are accused rapists, and 5% of them are falsely accused.   I'm not saying anything at all about the population at large, but for some reason you are. 

Quote
Do you really think breaking the population into subsets (rapists and not-rapists) are extraneous assumptions??

In this case, yes.  Because you're not only only introducing an unknown variable with an incidence below the fp rate, which by itself means you have a bad test, you're also implicitly incorporating the entire population of nonrapists into the population of accused rapists, just like a doctor would incorporate the entire population of healthy people into infection screening.  This doesn't make any sense, though, for reasons that seem obvious to me but apparently not to you. 

We're not talking about the entire population, unless the entire population stands accused of rape.  Your math assumes the entire population is accused of rape, generating many false positives, and then uses those false positives to argue that most people accused of rape are not rapists.  A better and more relevant approach to determining the likelihood of guilt of a specific existing allegation is to ignore the population at large that no one is talking about, and determine what percentage of people who ARE accused of rape are falsely vs correctly accused.  The answer to that question is more transparently given by fp, without any complications.

Quote
What i assumed is if one was accused by chance (random)

No one is accused of rape by random chance.

Quote
in the absence of hard physical evidence, I can not place more weight on one party over another

Does testimony carry no weight with you?  What if one person's story checks out and the other person is shown to be a dirty rotten liar?  Regardless of which side is which, I don't think you need physical evidence of a crime to establish the credibility of a witness.

Quote
that's how our legal system works on, also why the wrongful conviction rate is so low (link upthread). 

This is not a thread about criminal conviction, it's a thread about promoting a man to the Supreme Court.  And this has been one epic threadjack of that topic.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1087 on: October 03, 2018, 12:00:57 PM »
Can Kavanaugh sue and win a case against Ford for slander(because, you know, no one used a cell phone to record what did or did not happen)?

The answer appears to be no and I am a little confused as to why. I understand the biggest hurdle is he is now a public persona but the other problem is that he, like anyone else, would essentially have to prove a negative.
So if after moving into your house for 20 years your neighbors build a grind against you. At some point you become an official of your PTO or church group or just some minor local thing. Then you neighbor says 20 years ago, when you first moved in, that you (the man in this instance) ogled her with binoculars. The neighbors have defamed you and you family, yet you have no recourse???

Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

The recourse is to be a decent person and to build good relationships with the people around you.  If you do that the chances of you being accused of anything gross are infinitesimally small and the chances that anyone who matters to you will believe the accusation are even smaller.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1088 on: October 03, 2018, 12:03:12 PM »
Can Kavanaugh sue and win a case against Ford for slander(because, you know, no one used a cell phone to record what did or did not happen)?

The answer appears to be no and I am a little confused as to why. I understand the biggest hurdle is he is now a public persona but the other problem is that he, like anyone else, would essentially have to prove a negative.
So if after moving into your house for 20 years your neighbors build a grind against you. At some point you become an official of your PTO or church group or just some minor local thing. Then you neighbor says 20 years ago, when you first moved in, that you (the man in this instance) ogled her with binoculars. The neighbors have defamed you and you family, yet you have no recourse???

Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

That would be an unfortunate situation but what exactly would that punishment look like? How would you propose this situation be handled? Should we punish someone for making a claim where they don't have hard evidence to prove what happened?

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1089 on: October 03, 2018, 12:05:11 PM »
Quote
More accurately, I think, is not whether the 2-10% fp rate apply to nonrapists, but whether it applies equally to rapists and nonrapists.  And the simple logical deduction here is that rapists get accused of rape far more often than norapists get accused of rate.  Because, you know, they're rapists.  You don't need math to figure that one out.

This is an entirely different conceptual model than a doctor testing a population for infection.  Your construct is inappropriate, because you've assumed everyone has been accused and some percentage of them are thus falsely accused, and that's not how rape allegations work. 

The initial and more obvious interpretation is correct in this case.  If you are already accused of rape (you have tested positive for infection), and 5% of positive tests are false postives, then you have a 95% chance of being a rapist (or being infected).  You can then skew that math by introducing extraneous assumptions, like that only 1% of people are actually infected, but you don't know that in this case and there is no need to make that assumption. 

You don't need to confuse it.  In the absence of any other information, if 5% of rape allegations are false and 95% are true, then in 100 people accused of rape we would expect 5 of them to be falsely accused and 95 to be correctly accused.  Your statistical approach is mathematically correct for a different problem, one that we are not discussing here and bears no resemblance to rape allegations.


Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

Yes simple logical deduction would say the rates are not likely to be equal for the two groups, I am all for that. If you would like to provide a proper fp rate for the non rapist population i can take a look.

What you are implicitly implying when you treat the 5% false positive as the final outcome is this: There is no subset, the entire population consists of only rapists. This is clearly absurd. Do you really think breaking the population into subsets (rapists and not-rapists) are extraneous assumptions??

What i assumed is if one was accused by chance (random), again we can argue till the FBI result comes out if it applies here, but for the 10th time, in the absence of hard physical evidence, I can not place more weight on one party over another, because we are inherently bad at spotting liars (link upthread).

I understand absence of evidence does not equate absence of crime, but that's how our legal system works on, also why the wrongful conviction rate is so low (link upthread). 

Quote
This really is truly ridiculous. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with someone who writes four exhaustively researched paragraphs on a hypothetical scenario drawn up for illustration, then says literally nothing about the actual argument being made except insults from a thesaurus and a laughable air of superiority. I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

oh so i am a troll now? and it's just a hypothetical now? you seemed pretty certain of your case just a moment ago. I treat serious matters like this seriously, allegations should not be thrown around lightly in the absence of hard evidence. In fact, if you wish to participate in serious discussions, you should do your research before you show up and spew easily debunked bs like bike doping, false incarceration,etc. Run and Hide as you always do. Consider changing your name to runhiderun.

But just to amuse myself, i will do a 2x2 table with doping using stats from links upthread. 5% fp. I have no data on fn but conventional wisdom would suggest its between 10-20% given the fp being 5%. I am invoking the tradeoff of type I and type II for those of you following.

                              65% dope                      test yes                          test no
Real doper                     650                              520                                   130
normal bikers                 450                               23                                    427
                                   1000                              543                                 557

Test positive and actual doper: 520/543 = ~95%

It's not hard, runhiderun.

That is...a truly remarkable amount of effort expended on entirely the wrong point.

For the third time: "this test is 95% accurate" and "95% of positives on this test are correct" are not the same thing. You've taken the numbers from the latter, assumed the former, and then managed to produce nonsense. While accusing other posters of not being smart enough to get it. This was the entire point I was making regarding my hypothetical bike race: that's actually exactly the kind of situation your analysis works on, which is why A and B samples are used (incidentally, there's a superb documentary on Netflix called Icarus which deals with the Rusada scandal and explains a lot about the anti-doping process). The accusations against Kavanaugh are different, and we already know that 95% of accusations are credible.

If we know that 95% of claims are credible, and our math indicates that less than 30% of claims are credible, then our math has to be wrong. This isn't one of those cases like Simpson's paradox, or the three doors of Marilyn vos Savant, where the true answer seems counterintuitive; this is simply a case where it's logically impossible for both statements to be true. Either 5% of rape accusations are false, or 73% of rape accusations are false; it is a literal impossibility for both percentages to be accurate, and if plugging the first into your equations produces the second, then something has gone badly wrong.

You are absolutely correct that the ratio of false positives to true positives on a 95% accurate test is wildly variable depending on the frequency of what's being tested for. However, that's a misstatement of the original 95% claim, which is that about 5% of rape claims are false, not that we have a 95% accurate rape test.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1010
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1090 on: October 03, 2018, 12:07:55 PM »
So false accusations do happen, but they are pretty rare.  It's usually 1) a jilted ex-lover, or 2) a child accuser being coached by the vindictive other parent in a divorce (usually the mother, sorry to say).  Still, these instances are vanishingly rare, and the truth usually comes out by a thorough investigation and/or cross examination by a competent attorney.  I suppose as #metoo runs its course we may see more "bandwagon" hoaxes and false accusations against famous people / celebrities who have already been outed as abusers.  That doesn't mean you automatically disbelieve all accusers, you just have to take each allegation on its own merits.         

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4598
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1091 on: October 03, 2018, 12:15:39 PM »

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Quote
False report
A false report is a reported crime to a law enforcement agency that an investigation factually proves never occurred
.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

The definition of false accusation is not entirely agreed upon which is why the range (2-10%) is significant, but as far as I can tell most studies are referring to the % of cases which were concluded to be false.
Your own link disagrees with you:
Quote
While some police departments may follow these guidelines, it is not mandatory, and as a result, many do not. In addition, gaps in law enforcement training may inadvertently encourage identifying any of the following factors as indicators of a false report: delayed reporting, victim indifference to injuries, vagueness, or victimís attempt to steer away from unsafe details, suspect description, or location of offense (Archambault, 2005). As a result, many reports are classified as ďfalse.Ē
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1092 on: October 03, 2018, 12:16:10 PM »
Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

You can only successfully sue for slander if you can prove that the allegations against you were untrue, that the person who made them knew that they were untrue, and that the accusations caused you harm.  It would seem harm is a given if the allegations were false, but given what is known it is unclear how Kavanaugh would make the case Ford made intentionally false statements against him. 
There doesn't seem to be a motive as Ford herself has suffered harm throughout this process, and the evidence available (her polygraph, her therapist's notes, Kavanaugh's own calendar, and statements about his drinking, etc) make his own testimony problematic.

What he would likely need is a paper trail of correspondence where Ford discussed how best to go about falsely accusing him of sexual assault or an admission to someone that she made it all up. A clear motive for why she'd upend her and her family's life would also be necessary.  to date no such evidence supporting this has come up.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1093 on: October 03, 2018, 12:29:59 PM »
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1094 on: October 03, 2018, 12:38:16 PM »
(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?


Why not choose to involve the legal system in both cases?  Hire a defense attorney for you son if he is going to be charged criminally, or take your daughter to the police ASAP and have her go on the record so the attempted rapist does not go unpunished.  No need for vigilante justice...

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1095 on: October 03, 2018, 12:40:55 PM »

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Quote
False report
A false report is a reported crime to a law enforcement agency that an investigation factually proves never occurred
.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

The definition of false accusation is not entirely agreed upon which is why the range (2-10%) is significant, but as far as I can tell most studies are referring to the % of cases which were concluded to be false.
Your own link disagrees with you:
Quote
While some police departments may follow these guidelines, it is not mandatory, and as a result, many do not. In addition, gaps in law enforcement training may inadvertently encourage identifying any of the following factors as indicators of a false report: delayed reporting, victim indifference to injuries, vagueness, or victimís attempt to steer away from unsafe details, suspect description, or location of offense (Archambault, 2005). As a result, many reports are classified as ďfalse.Ē
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

This is why the figure has a wide range agreed upon by researchers of 2-10%. Researchers believe proven false accusations fall somewhere in this range despite the fact that in some cases the reported number is much higher than 10%. These cases are what the above quote are referring to and they've been taken into account to arrive at 2-10%.

Again from Wikipedia:

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

It's been stated many times throughout this thread that if 5% (simplified 2-10%) are false accusations then the other 95% are guilty. That is almost certainly not the case as only ~20% are convicted. This leaves ~75% of accusations in limbo, neither proven nor disproven. Considering what portion of those are true/false would be an entirely different question.

Of course it's possible that I'm still wrong but that quote doesn't dispute my understanding.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 12:43:23 PM by Dabnasty »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1096 on: October 03, 2018, 12:49:31 PM »
In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

My son is 15.  Over the past 5-6 years, we've had to intervene several times to correct sexually inappropriate behavior.  Boys need to learn.

For example, several years ago, the normal brother/sister hitting problems that all families seem to experience ("Mommm!  She hit me!") started to get weird, when he would slap her on the butt.  She didn't see it as any different from the normal hitting that everyone gets in trouble for, but I felt like I had to pull him aside and have a little talk.  Like "not only do we not hit our siblings, now that you're growing up you also need to know that we definitely don't touch girls without their permission.  Not your sister and not anyone else.  Don't make me kick your ass."  And he seemed to understand, and he doesn't do that anymore.  Of course, I think I may have taken it too far because now he's utterly terrified of girls and is lamenting how he will never get a girlfriend.

In the example you've posed, if this is just hurt feelings and not sexual assault, I'd still want a full accounting.  I want his version of the story, and hers, and everyone else's, and then (since this doesn't appear to be an emotionally traumatic event) I'd want everyone and their parents to sit down and talk about appropriate behaviors.  Sometimes boys don't recognize when they have crossed lines, and sometimes girls don't adequately express their discomfort with situations, and all parties can do better in avoiding these kinds of problems.  Most such situations are not the result of malevolence, but boys who cross lines are still the ones at fault and thus are the ones who need to understand their mistakes and make appropriate apologies.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1097 on: October 03, 2018, 12:52:06 PM »
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.

Luckily, you don't have to sit back and wait for disaster to strike. There is good evidence out there that teaching boys not to rape is very efficient, especially if you at the same time teach girls self defence and self confidence: https://www.parent24.com/Child_7-12/Development/these-consent-classes-have-reduced-rape-by-51-in-nairobi-20180322

How to do it: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-new-teen-age/201501/teaching-our-sons-not-rape

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1098 on: October 03, 2018, 12:53:06 PM »
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.

If that's your conclusion, you're not paying attention. Most of us think that Kavanaugh should not have the privilege to serve on the supreme court and the primary reasons are his partisan feelings, lack of honesty about issues unrelated to the accusation and his temperament.

ETA: Oh, and if you go back to the beginning, pretty much everyone was just asking for an investigation.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1099 on: October 03, 2018, 01:01:38 PM »
(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?


Why not choose to involve the legal system in both cases?  Hire a defense attorney for you son if he is going to be charged criminally, or take your daughter to the police ASAP and have her go on the record so the attempted rapist does not go unpunished.  No need for vigilante justice...
Because my son potentially did something very wrong.

Sure, I'll hire a defense attorney if necessary. But more importantly I want to be sure my son understands, is sorry, and never does it again.

 Or what if one or both boys flat deny it even happened. "Hey son, just tell them you are sorry and we will forget about this"-a dad. Either boy-"Nope, I never did that." It is easy when everything is clear and the girls motivation for telling a lie would be low but what if there is only circumstantial evidence; they know each other, were in the same area/building at the same time. What if it is dark and she couldn't see him but recognized his voice.

In the immediate aftermath of it happening to your daughter it is probably best to go to the police; but then what? If the kid is a real SOB, then sure lock him up. But what if he seems more like an immature idiot, then what?