The most confrontational things I’ve said were calling the author’s sting proposals creepy, I compared them to witch hunts, and I made fun of the author and the entire audience for sleeping through the validity lectures of Psychology 101. The rest of my criticisms were directed at specific claims and specific feminist arguments. After reading my case, anyone is welcome to decide whether my approach is over the top if my premises are correct.
While I understand that many of the readers here are trying to be sympathetic and find things to like about this piece due to their abhorrence for sexual assault and empathy for survivors, such a response downplays serious problems with the piece and deprives the author from getting critical feedback.
If articles with certain types of errors aren’t called out and instead they are lauded, then further argumentation of the same type will be incentivized.
That’s how we get to point where 6% of male EAs are categorized as rapists who should be captured in stings and medicated. Either this argument is in bad faith—or something has gone horribly wrong if someone can make it and think they are operating in good faith.
(I missed this before, but an additional criticism is that the 6% figure comes from a study by David Lisak. Lisak is known for fraudulent academic conduct. We should not only doubt his results, but we should note that this entire field has extremely broken incentives, and suspect all sensationalist studies emerging from it for cooking their books or falsifying data.)
(I missed this before, but an additional criticism is that the 6% figure comes from a study by David Lisak. Lisak is known for fraudulent academic conduct. We should not only doubt his results, but we should note that this entire field has extremely broken incentives, and suspect all sensationalist studies emerging from it for cooking their books or falsifying data.)
Your sources are contradicting your own points. If the data for these surveys didn’t come from Lisak, and was not originally part of a study on sexual violence, then it’s just nonsensical to presume that the data is skewed because it’s feminist.
If the data for these surveys didn’t come from Lisak … then it’s just nonsensical to presume that the data is skewed because it’s feminist
Agreed—but I still think we should be concerned about the quality of the data. The linked article suggests that Lisak’s study was assembled from other studies which he’s apparently unable to cite, which weren’t especially careful about the data they collected, and which probably aren’t representative of most college campuses.
Nothing in that article suggests that the data was low quality
I think the fact that Lisak literally cannot remember where his data comes from should be concerning.
That’s irrelevant here, because the number here is being used as a representation of men in EA, not men on college campuses.
Good point—I’ll instead say then that these numbers are likely specific to the particular population of that college and are even less likely to be useful for making inferences about the EA community as a whole. Lisak himself says of the study:
“Because of the nonrandom nature of the sampling procedures, the reported data cannot be interpreted as estimates of the prevalence of sexual or other acts of violence.”
The most confrontational things I’ve said were calling the author’s sting proposals creepy, I compared them to witch hunts, and I made fun of the author and the entire audience for sleeping through the validity lectures of Psychology 101. The rest of my criticisms were directed at specific claims and specific feminist arguments. After reading my case, anyone is welcome to decide whether my approach is over the top if my premises are correct.
While I understand that many of the readers here are trying to be sympathetic and find things to like about this piece due to their abhorrence for sexual assault and empathy for survivors, such a response downplays serious problems with the piece and deprives the author from getting critical feedback.
If articles with certain types of errors aren’t called out and instead they are lauded, then further argumentation of the same type will be incentivized.
That’s how we get to point where 6% of male EAs are categorized as rapists who should be captured in stings and medicated. Either this argument is in bad faith—or something has gone horribly wrong if someone can make it and think they are operating in good faith.
(I missed this before, but an additional criticism is that the 6% figure comes from a study by David Lisak. Lisak is known for fraudulent academic conduct. We should not only doubt his results, but we should note that this entire field has extremely broken incentives, and suspect all sensationalist studies emerging from it for cooking their books or falsifying data.)
Your sources are contradicting your own points. If the data for these surveys didn’t come from Lisak, and was not originally part of a study on sexual violence, then it’s just nonsensical to presume that the data is skewed because it’s feminist.
Agreed—but I still think we should be concerned about the quality of the data. The linked article suggests that Lisak’s study was assembled from other studies which he’s apparently unable to cite, which weren’t especially careful about the data they collected, and which probably aren’t representative of most college campuses.
Nothing in that article suggests that the data was low quality, just that some of them might not have been traditional college students.
That’s irrelevant here, because the number here is being used as a representation of men in EA, not men on college campuses.
I think the fact that Lisak literally cannot remember where his data comes from should be concerning.
Good point—I’ll instead say then that these numbers are likely specific to the particular population of that college and are even less likely to be useful for making inferences about the EA community as a whole. Lisak himself says of the study:
“Because of the nonrandom nature of the sampling procedures, the reported data cannot be interpreted as estimates of the prevalence of sexual or other acts of violence.”