Scott Alexander said “0.3% chance of false accusation”, I calculated 1⁄4000 ( This number is based on the FBI UCR study: 93,000 reported rapes yearly X (.97 X .03 X .2 chance of falsely naming a man) X 75 years / 160000000 men = 0.025% or 1 in 4000 chance of being falsely accused of rape. FBI: UCR. “2015 Crime in the United States.” FBI. Accessed July 23, 2022. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/rape)) Either way, still rare.
… Men have a 1 in 4,000 or 0.025% (or 0.3%, if we use Scott Alexander’s number) chance of being falsely accused.
This is a highly misleading summary. 0.3% is not Alexander’s estimate, it is his attempt to get an ultra-conservative impossible-to-be-lower-than-this lower bound. His best guess was literally 10x higher:
So greater than 0.3% of men get falsely accused of rape sometime in their lives, and the most likely number is probably around 3%.
This is over 100x higher than your number. And it’s not even his upper bound, which is significantly higher still.
EA has copped a lot of media criticism lately. Some of it (especially the stuff more directly associated with FTX) is well-deserved. There are some other loud critics who seem to be motivated by personal vendettas and/or seem to fundamentally object with the movement’s core aims and values, but rather than tackling those head-on, seem to be trying to simply through everything that’ll stick, no matter how flimsy.
None of that excuses dismissal of the concerning patterns of abuse you’ve raised, but I think it explains some of the defensiveness around here right now.
This is a highly misleading summary. 0.3% is not Alexander’s estimate, it is his attempt to get an ultra-conservative impossible-to-be-lower-than-this lower bound. His best guess was literally 10x higher:
This is over 100x higher than your number. And it’s not even his upper bound, which is significantly higher still.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-social-media-part-5-of-%E2%88%9E/
EA has copped a lot of media criticism lately. Some of it (especially the stuff more directly associated with FTX) is well-deserved. There are some other loud critics who seem to be motivated by personal vendettas and/or seem to fundamentally object with the movement’s core aims and values, but rather than tackling those head-on, seem to be trying to simply through everything that’ll stick, no matter how flimsy.
None of that excuses dismissal of the concerning patterns of abuse you’ve raised, but I think it explains some of the defensiveness around here right now.