Thanks for bringing that up again. I realized I misparsed a bit at the end. However, the conclusion it seems to imply seems a bit dubious, i.e. it seems that our starting credence is more ‘resilient’ than the passage presents it to be if we’re anchoring to base rates. I edited in a section to my initial response to that comment.
What are the base rates you are anchoring to here? This is basically comparing the probability of someone being sexually assaulted VS the probability of someone making a false accusation right?
Update (2023-04-27): In retrospect, I think I could have underestimated the probabilities, although perhaps not by much?
I still think there are strong differences between different parts of society/the world. A lot has changed this past decade, it seems. I would probably still assign higher-than-average probabilities to accusations in places where it’s more costly to accuse (e.g. outside of English-speaking countries, more conservative areas etc.), and lower-than-average probability to accusations in places where it’s less costly (or even slightly status-elevating) to accuse (e.g. within English-speaking countries, more progressive areas etc.).
For now, I’ll avoid stating a new number so I don’t anchor to it while updating. I should also be less susceptible to pressures from the community to think in a certain way, with more time to think about it.
In any case, I don’t appreciate uncharitable interpretations of views that challenge apparent community consensus. I intend to continue to speak my mind.
lilly’s comment was on misconduct, which seems to have a lower rate of being true than assault, given that it encompasses milder problems, as well as different interpretations of what harassment means (this seems particularly the case in the Anglo-American world). My guess is that base rates could range anywhere between 20% and 90%. Recent societal trends have introduced a lot of uncertainty, and have made me doubt accusations more. I think 37.5% prior probability conditional on an accusation (maybe 25% in progressive-leaning social environments) might make sense. (I think I have higher-than-average doubt relative to many EAs on humans acting justly when they perceive an increase in power. It only takes a small percentage of individuals who are willing to exploit things.)
On assault accusations, which titotal’s comment refers to, the base rate seems higher (although the error bars seem large—Scott Alexander on a related statistic). Perhaps I should assign an ~80% prior probability conditional on an accusation. Yeah, that does seem like a “moderately high probability” actually—it makes sense for me to correct my reply to titotal. I think I’d still be less willing to punish severely with that amount of uncertainty, because of “beyond a reasonable doubt” reasons actually, as titotal pointed out, but it’s hard to be confident that that’s the right thing to do.
Makes sense RE: it encompassing milder problems, but this means it is also more likely, so it’s not clear that this cashes out favorably in the direction of the false accusations.
What do you think the base rate of sexual harassment is? e.g. if you think 80% is the baseline risk for someone, i don’t know how you justify a 25% to 37.5% likelihood of actual harassment conditional on an accusation. It sounds like you’re basically saying that 2⁄3 to 3⁄4 accusations are false? Are you grounding these in anything empirical or are these uninformed priors?
EDIT2: It seems like the people responding to me don’t really consider the possibility of missteps/someone’s intent? That seems unfortunate.
EDIT: the link I posted earlier (https://hiddentribes.us/) is quite relevant in introducing nuance to what I wrote about people in “parts of the Anglosphere” becoming more sensitive. It’s different for different people in the Anglosphere. E.g. about a 49-51 split on “harassment is commonplace” to “too many ordinary behaviors are labeled as sexual harassment” in the U.S.
I suspect my probabilities are probably very different from yours mainly because of different ideas of what harassment means.
For instance, one acquaintance of mine puts his hands around me in a somewhat intimate way sometimes, but I honestly don’t consider it “harassment” (edit: it does make me feel slightly uncomfortable and I haven’t raised the issue, but I really don’t think he has bad intentions—we’re probably just raised differently etc.). One friend makes sexual remarks a lot—some people might feel very uncomfortable—I don’t really.
I think those examples point to differences in expectations of what’s comfortable/uncomfortable to people. In parts of the Anglosphere, people seem more sensitive to an extent that in some cases I would consider them to be overreaching. Sure, maybe avoid those things if you think if it makes people uncomfortable (or not, if you think there are risks of safetyism?) - but I don’t see the case for expanding a concept that comes with significant legal and social consequences.
I’m guessing I’m less inclined than you are to consider discomfort to mean harassment (I believe Aella made several great points in her post that are relevant to this view). In a larger number of cases where there’s an accusation that simply refers to “sexual harassment” I’m doubtful that it means what (many others and) I have in mind.
I didn’t make a claim that this was just about making sexual jokes or just about ‘discomfort’, and I’m not really sure where you got that from.
Also, you’re clearly entitled to your opinion around what you consider uncomfortable personally, but what happens if someone else thinks putting you putting your hand around them in a somewhat intimate way is inappropriate? It sounds like you’d consider this a false accusation? That this shouldn’t be something classified as sexual harassment?
Again,
It sounds like you’re basically saying that 2⁄3 to 3⁄4 accusations are false? Are you grounding these in anything empirical or are these uninformed priors?
I want to make a meta point about why I chose not to engage in a back-and-forth with @Timothy Chan about this. My language here is a little sharp, because I’m frustrated by his exchange with @pseudonym (and think it’s reasonable for me to be frustrated).
From the outset, I was a bit worried that what was motivating Timothy’s comment was not a rejection of the claim that “believing most women who make accusations of sexual misconduct” is a conventional social norm, but rather that it is a reasonable one. His initial point (“Many of us live or grew up outside of the Anglo-American world… and might place more importance to principles such as the presumption of innocence”) is, of course, true. But my post isn’t about what conventional social norms are, and to the extent that it does touch on this, the relevant claim is just: “whether norms in EA are good or bad for you will depend on your point of comparison,” not a substantive descriptive claim about what norms are “conventional.”
The bar for commenting on the Forum definitely shouldn’t be “you have to engage with the core point of the post,” which is why I responded in good faith. But his initial comment wasn’t giving me big scout mindset vibes, because he didn’t attempt to tie his comment to the upshot of that section, didn’t read the relevant footnote, and didn’t meaningfully engage with the substance of the post.
I responded by citing a paper on whether there’s tension between the presumption of innocence and believing women, since I took the subtext of his comment to be that there is a tradeoff here. He proceeded to not substantively engage with my response, either. (@pseudonym later quoted the same passage again, leading Timothy to eventually acknowledge: “I realized I misparsed a bit at the end,” and edit his response, which I appreciate.) By that point, I strongly suspected that what was actually going on here was that Timothy didn’t like that I had suggested that “believing most women” was a reasonable norm, and what he was actually taking issue with was that, but was couching this in a trivially true descriptive claim. I decided to stop responding.
Eventually, in his exchange with pseudonym, he all but confirms my initial hypothesis, saying: “In a larger number of cases where there’s an accusation that simply refers to ‘sexual harassment’ I’m doubtful that it means what (many others and) I have in mind.” In other words, he doesn’t think it’s reasonable to believe mostwomen who make allegations of sexual harassment because, as he puts it, they’re perhaps just “sensitive.” (One might read my interpretation here as uncharitable, but I think I’m drawing inferences that are reasonable to draw, especially because discussions on this issue often play out this way. #baserates)
I had intentionally kept the claim in the post weak—”believe most women”—because I wanted to avoid this kind of back-and-forth. What I said isn’t deep: you’d believe most people if they told you it was cold outside, you’d believe most people if they told you they didn’t like olives, you’d believe most people if they told you someone made a rude remark, and you should similarly believe most women who accuse someone of sexual misconduct. I didn’t quote some statistic about how 92% of the time, women are telling the truth; I just said it’s reasonable to believe most women who accuse others of misconduct, which it is.
Note that I was specifically talking about people (of all genders/in general) in parts of theAnglosphere being “sensitive”. I’ll quote myself.
In parts of the Anglosphere, people seem more sensitive to an extent that in some cases I would consider them to be overreaching.
Of course, it’s also influencing much outside of it.
Although, there does seem to be a phenomenon where a combination of being young, female, and being politically liberal, makes someone particularly vulnerable to anxiety and depression. This seems to have also increased in recent years in the U.S. https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls I do prefer that we can reverse such trends.
EDIT: Apart from quoting a part of my previous comment and stating a preference for there to be less anxiety and depression, everything in this comment is purely descriptive. Are people strong downvoting over offense over that? It’s really not a good sign of community epistemic health.
If you do want my (normative) opinions on all this, I think it’s beneficial and possible for the subset of people in Anglosphere whom I was referring to, to reverse recent trends and become more resilient. There is currently a combination of high false positive rates + expanded notions of perceived malice and of harm, which isn’t very good for your democratic societies, in my opinion.
Thanks for bringing that up again. I realized I misparsed a bit at the end. However, the conclusion it seems to imply seems a bit dubious, i.e. it seems that our starting credence is more ‘resilient’ than the passage presents it to be if we’re anchoring to base rates. I edited in a section to my initial response to that comment.
What are the base rates you are anchoring to here? This is basically comparing the probability of someone being sexually assaulted VS the probability of someone making a false accusation right?
Update (2023-04-27): In retrospect, I think I could have underestimated the probabilities, although perhaps not by much?
I still think there are strong differences between different parts of society/the world. A lot has changed this past decade, it seems. I would probably still assign higher-than-average probabilities to accusations in places where it’s more costly to accuse (e.g. outside of English-speaking countries, more conservative areas etc.), and lower-than-average probability to accusations in places where it’s less costly (or even slightly status-elevating) to accuse (e.g. within English-speaking countries, more progressive areas etc.).
For now, I’ll avoid stating a new number so I don’t anchor to it while updating. I should also be less susceptible to pressures from the community to think in a certain way, with more time to think about it.
In any case, I don’t appreciate uncharitable interpretations of views that challenge apparent community consensus. I intend to continue to speak my mind.
lilly’s comment was on misconduct, which seems to have a lower rate of being true than assault, given that it encompasses milder problems, as well as different interpretations of what harassment means (this seems particularly the case in the Anglo-American world). My guess is that base rates could range anywhere between 20% and 90%. Recent societal trends have introduced a lot of uncertainty, and have made me doubt accusations more. I think 37.5% prior probability conditional on an accusation (maybe 25% in progressive-leaning social environments) might make sense. (I think I have higher-than-average doubt relative to many EAs on humans acting justly when they perceive an increase in power. It only takes a small percentage of individuals who are willing to exploit things.)
On assault accusations, which titotal’s comment refers to, the base rate seems higher (although the error bars seem large—Scott Alexander on a related statistic). Perhaps I should assign an ~80% prior probability conditional on an accusation. Yeah, that does seem like a “moderately high probability” actually—it makes sense for me to correct my reply to titotal. I think I’d still be less willing to punish severely with that amount of uncertainty, because of “beyond a reasonable doubt” reasons actually, as titotal pointed out, but it’s hard to be confident that that’s the right thing to do.
Makes sense RE: it encompassing milder problems, but this means it is also more likely, so it’s not clear that this cashes out favorably in the direction of the false accusations.
What do you think the base rate of sexual harassment is? e.g. if you think 80% is the baseline risk for someone, i don’t know how you justify a 25% to 37.5% likelihood of actual harassment conditional on an accusation. It sounds like you’re basically saying that 2⁄3 to 3⁄4 accusations are false? Are you grounding these in anything empirical or are these uninformed priors?
EDIT2: It seems like the people responding to me don’t really consider the possibility of missteps/someone’s intent? That seems unfortunate.
EDIT: the link I posted earlier (https://hiddentribes.us/) is quite relevant in introducing nuance to what I wrote about people in “parts of the Anglosphere” becoming more sensitive. It’s different for different people in the Anglosphere. E.g. about a 49-51 split on “harassment is commonplace” to “too many ordinary behaviors are labeled as sexual harassment” in the U.S.
I suspect my probabilities are probably very different from yours mainly because of different ideas of what harassment means.
For instance, one acquaintance of mine puts his hands around me in a somewhat intimate way sometimes, but I honestly don’t consider it “harassment” (edit: it does make me feel slightly uncomfortable and I haven’t raised the issue, but I really don’t think he has bad intentions—we’re probably just raised differently etc.). One friend makes sexual remarks a lot—some people might feel very uncomfortable—I don’t really.
I think those examples point to differences in expectations of what’s comfortable/uncomfortable to people. In parts of the Anglosphere, people seem more sensitive to an extent that in some cases I would consider them to be overreaching. Sure, maybe avoid those things if you think if it makes people uncomfortable (or not, if you think there are risks of safetyism?) - but I don’t see the case for expanding a concept that comes with significant legal and social consequences.
I’m guessing I’m less inclined than you are to consider discomfort to mean harassment (I believe Aella made several great points in her post that are relevant to this view). In a larger number of cases where there’s an accusation that simply refers to “sexual harassment” I’m doubtful that it means what (many others and) I have in mind.
I didn’t make a claim that this was just about making sexual jokes or just about ‘discomfort’, and I’m not really sure where you got that from.
Also, you’re clearly entitled to your opinion around what you consider uncomfortable personally, but what happens if someone else thinks putting you putting your hand around them in a somewhat intimate way is inappropriate? It sounds like you’d consider this a false accusation? That this shouldn’t be something classified as sexual harassment?
Again,
I want to make a meta point about why I chose not to engage in a back-and-forth with @Timothy Chan about this. My language here is a little sharp, because I’m frustrated by his exchange with @pseudonym (and think it’s reasonable for me to be frustrated).
From the outset, I was a bit worried that what was motivating Timothy’s comment was not a rejection of the claim that “believing most women who make accusations of sexual misconduct” is a conventional social norm, but rather that it is a reasonable one. His initial point (“Many of us live or grew up outside of the Anglo-American world… and might place more importance to principles such as the presumption of innocence”) is, of course, true. But my post isn’t about what conventional social norms are, and to the extent that it does touch on this, the relevant claim is just: “whether norms in EA are good or bad for you will depend on your point of comparison,” not a substantive descriptive claim about what norms are “conventional.”
The bar for commenting on the Forum definitely shouldn’t be “you have to engage with the core point of the post,” which is why I responded in good faith. But his initial comment wasn’t giving me big scout mindset vibes, because he didn’t attempt to tie his comment to the upshot of that section, didn’t read the relevant footnote, and didn’t meaningfully engage with the substance of the post.
I responded by citing a paper on whether there’s tension between the presumption of innocence and believing women, since I took the subtext of his comment to be that there is a tradeoff here. He proceeded to not substantively engage with my response, either. (@pseudonym later quoted the same passage again, leading Timothy to eventually acknowledge: “I realized I misparsed a bit at the end,” and edit his response, which I appreciate.) By that point, I strongly suspected that what was actually going on here was that Timothy didn’t like that I had suggested that “believing most women” was a reasonable norm, and what he was actually taking issue with was that, but was couching this in a trivially true descriptive claim. I decided to stop responding.
Eventually, in his exchange with pseudonym, he all but confirms my initial hypothesis, saying: “In a larger number of cases where there’s an accusation that simply refers to ‘sexual harassment’ I’m doubtful that it means what (many others and) I have in mind.” In other words, he doesn’t think it’s reasonable to believe most women who make allegations of sexual harassment because, as he puts it, they’re perhaps just “sensitive.” (One might read my interpretation here as uncharitable, but I think I’m drawing inferences that are reasonable to draw, especially because discussions on this issue often play out this way. #baserates)
I had intentionally kept the claim in the post weak—”believe most women”—because I wanted to avoid this kind of back-and-forth. What I said isn’t deep: you’d believe most people if they told you it was cold outside, you’d believe most people if they told you they didn’t like olives, you’d believe most people if they told you someone made a rude remark, and you should similarly believe most women who accuse someone of sexual misconduct. I didn’t quote some statistic about how 92% of the time, women are telling the truth; I just said it’s reasonable to believe most women who accuse others of misconduct, which it is.
Note that I was specifically talking about people (of all genders/in general) in parts of the Anglosphere being “sensitive”. I’ll quote myself.
Of course, it’s also influencing much outside of it.
Although, there does seem to be a phenomenon where a combination of being young, female, and being politically liberal, makes someone particularly vulnerable to anxiety and depression. This seems to have also increased in recent years in the U.S. https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls I do prefer that we can reverse such trends.
EDIT: Apart from quoting a part of my previous comment and stating a preference for there to be less anxiety and depression, everything in this comment is purely descriptive. Are people strong downvoting over offense over that? It’s really not a good sign of community epistemic health.
If you do want my (normative) opinions on all this, I think it’s beneficial and possible for the subset of people in Anglosphere whom I was referring to, to reverse recent trends and become more resilient. There is currently a combination of high false positive rates + expanded notions of perceived malice and of harm, which isn’t very good for your democratic societies, in my opinion.