“Obviously we can’t say this is all causal—in general all good properties are correlated, so it’s likely there are shared genetic etc. causes.”
Through infanticide, males can eliminate the offspring of their competition and get the female back to full baby-making capacity faster
Can you provide a reliable source supporting the claim that the UK legal system does not allow the accused access to all evidence?
I did some research of my own, and from what I can gather, it seems the provision you refer to is mostly about not letting the public know the name of the alleged victim. I find it hard to believe that the accused sometimes does not know the name of the alleged victim in the UK legal system.
FIRE has some discussion on their website if you search for “cross-examine” here. Maybe you can provide legal background on how this situation differs from a college disciplinary hearing.
But I’m less interested in legal technicalities and more interested in what the best policies for Effective Altruism are. There’s a decent chance this is the end of Jacy’s career as an EA. It’s important for CEA to wield its power in this area responsibly.
I’m not saying Jacy should definitely be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. I’m just saying it’s a complex issue that deserves careful consideration.
Two of FIRE’s conditions request that victims of sexual assault must face their assailant in order to have any hope of justice.
If I’m not mistaken, only one condition requires this (“Right to face accuser and witness”). I don’t see how the “Access to all evidence” condition requires this.
You seem to have strong feelings about this. I think these are complex issues that deserve careful consideration. Here in the US, the right to confront witnesses is a guarantee provided by the Sixth Amendment to our constitution. I’d want a good understanding of why it’s there before being confident in its removal.
Very few teenagers are formally accused of sexual misconduct, and even fewer expelled from a university following an accusation.
I searched for information on how Brown University handles sexual misconduct and quickly found two cases of judges siding with students who felt they were treated unfairly by Brown University tribunals.
A federal judge has reinstated a Brown University student after finding that the Ivy League school in Providence, R.I., improperly judged him responsible for sexual misconduct.
...
“After the preliminary injunction, this Court was deluged with emails resulting from an organized campaign to influence the outcome. These tactics, while perhaps appropriate and effective in influencing legislators or officials in the executive branch, have no place in the judicial process. This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution would know this. Moreover, having read a few of the emails, it is abundantly clear that the writers, while passionate, were woefully ignorant about the issues before the Court.”
...
It’s extremely rare for a judge to intervene in such a case against a private university because, unlike public schools, they are not bound by obligations under the Constitution to afford due process to the accused.
John Doe’s suit was for breach of contract, one of the few avenues open to students at private universities.
From an article on Case #1 (Judge William E. Smith). The judge’s remark “having read a few of the emails, it is abundantly clear that the writers, while passionate, were woefully ignorant about the issues before the Court” appears to lend credibility to Jacy’s claim that “The stories against me snowballed into exaggerated rumors about me last year that I’m sure many in my class heard.”
A Brown University student suspended for alleged sexual misconduct has won an important victory: His lawsuit against the university, which makes some of the most eye-popping claims of unfair treatment that I’ve seen in my years of covering these issues, has survived a motion to dismiss.
From an article on Case #2 (Judge John McConnell).
FIRE is an organization which rates universities on whether they provide due process to those accused of sexual misconduct. They give Brown University a grade of D in this area (which seems to be the most common grade). Note that the process used in the Effective Altruism community appears to violate at least two of FIRE’s due process safeguards: “Access to all evidence” and “Right to face accuser and witness”. (I have complex feelings about this. Can elaborate if people are interested.)
Anyway, seems to me Jacy’s expulsion provides less evidence than you might think, because Brown’s process for deciding these things is not that great.
I don’t think it’s clear from this post which steps weren’t voluntary, and I don’t think we should make assumptions.
I’m familiar with a specific case in this area where CEA’s response seemed excessive to me. And I’ve heard of CEA employees, people who were middle-of-the-road politically, who began to tire of CEA’s excessive concern for its public image and the public image of the EA movement.
But the thing is that excessive concern for public image might not be a bad idea in this day and age. People have written books about this.
He has himself agreed to step back from the EA community more generally, and to step back from public life in general, which would be an odd move if these were minor misdemeanours.
Not necessarily, in the current cultural milieu.
I think enforcement of this stuff is very uneven and depends a lot on your social circle. Some social circles are underzealous in their enforcement, others overzealous. Given purity spiral dynamics which seem present in the animal rights movement, it seems possible their enforcement is overzealous.
Thanks for the info.
The way I’m reading these excerpts, only one refers to an alienating conversation of the sort discussed in Making Discussions Inclusive (the one about the “somewhat sexist” comment).
The other three seem like complaints about the “vibe”, which feels like a separate issue. (Not saying there’s nothing to do, just that Making Discussions Inclusive doesn’t obviously offer suggestions.) Indeed, there could even be a tradeoff: Reading posts like Making Discussions Inclusive makes me less inclined to talk to women and queer men, because I think to myself “it’d be very easy for me to accidentally say something that would upset them… probably best to avoid opening my mouth at all, so I don’t screw things up for the entire EA movement.”
My intent was to point out that you can make the slippery slope argument in either direction. I wasn’t trying to claim it was more compelling in one direction or the other.
If you believe EA has Epistemic Honor, that argument works in both directions too: “Because EA has Epistemic Honor, any rules we make will be reasonable, and we won’t push people out just for having an unfashionable viewpoint.”
I do think slippery slope arguments have some merit, and group tendencies can be self-reinforcing. Birds of feather flock together. Because Scientology has a kooky reputation, it will tend to attract more kooks. See also Schelling’s model of segregation and this essay on evaporative cooling.
Perhaps it’s valuable to brainstorm compromise positions which guard against slipping in either direction. (Example: “Discussion that could be alienating should be allowed in EA Facebook groups if and only if the person who starts the discussion is able to convince a moderator that the topic is important enough to outweigh the costs of alienation.” That idea has flaws, but maybe you can think of a better one.)
We don’t want to dismiss how frustrating it can be to see people being wrong without it being sufficiently challenged, but we also believe that people are generally capable of overcoming these challenges and learning to adopt a broader perspective from where they can see that it usually isn’t actually very important if someone is wrong on the internet.
People typically have the choice of many different communities they could become a part of. So if one community seems consistently wrong about something in a frustrating way, it’s not surprising if someone chooses to move on to a different community which lacks this problem. Yes, I could overcome my frustrations with Scientologists, learn to adopt a broader perspective, and join the Scientology community, but why bother?
Even though certain rules may seem quite mild and reasonable by themselves, their mere existence creates a reasonable fear that those with certain viewpoints will eventually be completely pushed out.
How does this version sound? “Even though certain heterodox beliefs may seem quite mild and reasonable by themselves, their mere existence creates a reasonable fear that those with certain extreme viewpoints will eventually come to dominate.”
Imagine a virus called “NiceKill” that is harmless… unless you’re a very nice person, in which case it kills you. Releasing a virus like this would be very bad, right? Now imagine a virus called “HalfNiceKill+60″ which silently spreads to everyone in the world, then 60 years later, it kills 50% of the very nice people. Still sounds pretty bad, right?
Research indicates altruism likely has a genetic basis. The Effective Altruism meme could act like HalfNiceKill+60 if it causes very nice people who would ordinarily have kids to focus on their careers because “that is what’s most effective”. From a long-termist perspective, elimination of the very nice people seems very bad. So if you want kids, but you’ve been holding back because “that is not what’s most effective”, I suggest you add parenting to your personal Things For People To Do list. It is a perfect Task Y… very hard for one person to have 100x as many kids as another. (Outside of sperm and egg donation at least.)
Note: This analysis is flawed if you believe the Singularity is going to happen in the next couple decades. I think it plausibly will, but I believe in hedging my bets.
As I said previously, I’m glad you are working on this problem. However, I suspect you are defaulting too strongly to public communication and coordination on this forum. My impression is that many EA orgs tend to keep their analysis private and publish only if there’s a compelling reason. For this particular issue, I see a few reasons to default even more strongly to privacy: First, there are reputational risks to the EA movement. Second, public online discussion of topics like this can degrade notoriously quickly. Therefore, I suggest that instead of soliciting public comments, you put together a small group of advisors, people with a few different perspectives from a few different stakeholders, and ask them to provide views on things like what the right set of questions to ask is. I suspect that this approach will get you better advice than drive-by internet commenting, while also mitigating the risks I described.
I have some more thoughts, but I’m following my own advice and sending them via a personal message :)
Maybe we need a norm of advertising our consent philosophy in prominent places the same way we do with gender, marital status and orientation.
Here is an interesting thread in the slatestarcodex subreddit where some possible problems with this idea were discussed (ctrl-f “public symbol”).
The simplest way to do this would be on the basis of whether a woman wears revealing clothes. Unfortunately, there’s something of a taboo among feminists regarding this approach, because if you say anything about how a woman wore revealing clothes, feminists round that off to victim blaming and condemn you on that basis.
What are your thoughts on what needs to happen?
Thanks for asking! Some brainstorming:
I like your centralized reporting idea. Julia Wise says she has served as a contact point, and CFAR recently added a community disputes council which does this, among other things. (If you’re unable to see the post I linked, you can get in touch with the CFAR people here.) Getting all these people to make entries in a shared database seems good. (BTW, how many people reached out to you since you made this post and shared your anonymous feedback link?)
Try to understand why people don’t want to report sexual assaults. Would they be willing to report them in the context of the EA survey or some other anonymous survey? But also, would allowing for anonymous accusations this way present its own set of problems? Maybe if someone gets more than one anonymous accusation from different sources, then they should get quietly kicked out of the community (“quietly”=in a way that doesn’t harm their reputation, because these anonymous accusations are unverifiable—so we are kicking them out in order to mitigate risk, not because we think they should be condemned).
Instead of doing expensive social norm experimentation ourselves, maybe survey the anthropology literature and try to understand whether some societies have lower rates of rape/sexual assault than others, and what those societies have in common culturally.
I personally don’t really think the EA community should be seen as a place for dating/relationships—the same way workplaces are not seen this way. So I’m happy for the EA community standards to trade off decreased relationship formation in favor of increased safety. If you really want to date other EAs, there’s always reciprocity.io.
However, in society at large, I think it’d be good for feminists and women who create incentives for sexually aggressive behavior—e.g. 50 Shades of Grey fans—to dialogue more and come to some kind of compromise position. Right now the 50 Shades fans are nodding along with the feminists and then quietly rewarding guys who push boundaries.
I also think it’d be good for men to get positive examples of behavior that women consider OK or even appreciated, instead of only hearing about behaviors we shouldn’t do.
I get the impression feminists think they can solve sexual assault by making the threshold for what constitutes sexual assault ever lower. I think this hurts their credibility. Maybe there are some guys who take the feminist guideline and always adjust it some distance towards being more aggressive, but then there are other guys who want a decent-sized safety buffer between what we do and what gets you condemned. Learning that you are a monster if you have any sexual desire for women can also cause suicidality.
So maybe it’d be useful if there was a group that tried to put together a set of common-sense rules by surveying a representative population of women about what bothered them, and having a group of reasonable and fairly randomly sampled men & women engage in dialogue (with an equal number of both men and women in the group, and without penalizing people for saying uncomfortable stuff and expressing “Red Pill” sentiments—maybe by making it an anonymous online discussion or something. BTW in general, I think solving tribalism and helping people who disagree on these issues to engage productively would be good, e.g. you and Marcus in this thread). Then you could release your recommendations, and if someone violated them, it would hopefully create less drama to take action against the violator (because a broader set of people would be able to agree that the guidelines were reasonable and action is therefore justified if someone violates them). And if the level of drama decreased, then maybe women would be more willing to make accusations, and then we’d be able to get rid of the real bad apples more effectively.
The point is that if accusers are always being seen as part of the feminist camp, which lumps them in with some people saying some pretty crazy and unreasonable stuff, then that’s going to make them unpopular whenever they make an accusation, which is going to lead fewer women to be willing to make accusations. So another thing that might work is for more accusers to be explicit about which parts of feminist discourse they disagree with. If they seem like reasonable people, maybe their accusations will be taken more seriously, less drama will be generated, and making an accusation won’t make you unpopular.
This isn’t even in the article at all:
“along with high rates of trauma at 90%+ for female survivors.”
I haven’t even read the rest of your comment because your claims are blatantly, verifiably false.
I think Marcus was referring to the stats you quoted under “Sexual violence reduction as suffering reduction”, such as the claim that 94% of rape victims met the criteria for PTSD one week later.
Marcus’s comments were a lot more confrontational than I would have liked, but I still found them worth reading. I think there are some good points if you’re able to get past the confrontational tone.
I don’t think we can have an accurate idea of how much sexual assault is happening in EA without a separate high-quality survey. This is because there are so many definitions of sexual violence which contradict one another, that to ensure an accurate picture of what’s going on, we’d have to wrangle with definitions for a long time—and we’d end up asking a set of questions, not just one question.
I’d love to see a yearly undetected sex offender survey given to both men and women regarding how much sexual violence they committed against EAs in the last year, and a yearly sexual violence survey given to both men and women to ask how much sexual violence they received from EAs in the last year. If they added this to the yearly survey that would be awesome!
I think there’s a tradeoff here. If this is created as a second, separate survey, there will likely be selection effects in who chooses to take it. I expect people who are more concerned about the problem of sexual assault (such as people who have been sexually assaulted) will be more likely to complete a survey that’s specifically about sexual assault. Given these selection effects, I suspect it’s best to settle on a relatively brief measure and include it in the main survey.
Brainstorming on what to include in that measure:
One idea is to just ask people “were you sexually assaulted” and let them use their own definition. After all, our goal is to reduce psychological trauma. If someone’s experience met some technical definition of sexual assault, but it didn’t bother them very much, maybe it’s not something we need to worry about.
In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”
Far-fetched? Not as the draft is written. The hypothetical crime cobbles together two of the draft’s key concepts. The first is affirmative consent. The second is an enlarged definition of criminal sexual contact that would include the touching of any body part, clothed or unclothed, with sexual gratification in mind. As the authors of the model law explain: “Any kind of contact may qualify. There are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched.” So if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal. “With passivity expressly disallowed as consent,” the memo says, “the initiator quickly runs up a string of offenses with increasingly more severe penalties to be listed touch by touch and kiss by kiss in the criminal complaint.”
Source. I don’t think using a broad technical definition like this would be very useful, but a narrow technical definition of rape seems like it could be pretty useful to measure.
This blog post makes the case for vague rules like “don’t be a jerk” and “don’t be creepy”. Maybe that could make a good survey question: “Did you get creeped out by another EA in the past year? How creeped out were you on a scale of 1 to 10? Here’s a rubric.” I actually think a measure like this could be less controversial than trying to precisely define sexual assault. Hopefully even the most fraternity brother-ish of EAs can recognize the case for not creeping chicks out. (Similarly, having a central registry that tells people things like “a lot of people are getting creeped out by you” seems like it could maybe work better than trying to define what exactly constitutes “assault”—it frames the problem as something you’d like to become aware of and fix, like having body odor, as opposed to grounds for ostracization? Of course ostracization is in fact justified in some cases—I’m just thinking aloud here.)
I suppose one issue with these measures is that they will fluctuate depending on the presence/absence of highly sensitive people in the movement. Overall, I’m much more comfortable using measures like these as indicators for what we should prioritize internally vs an overall measure of the moral worth of the movement. In other words, maybe we should not make them public? I don’t know.
It might also be interesting to include a measure of how many women in EA would like men in EA to be more direct and sexually assertive with them—see this comment.
The reason I want to write a separate article about the number of sex offenders in EA is because it appears quite controversial. If we can get closer to having a consensus on sexual violence related matters, I think this will make us more effective at reducing it. The purpose of the article is not to create a more accurate number. I’m not even sure that’s possible. The purpose of the article is to address the controversy, explore the complexities, and encourage people to compensate for the various biases that may be interfering.
Well, as a man in EA, I don’t like the idea of people thinking of me as a possible sex offender—especially if I’m not, in fact, a sex offender. And whenever you try to estimate how X men in EA are sex offenders, no matter what X you tell people, you’ve framed things in a way that is gonna make people see me as a possible sex offender. So maybe that’s why you got some pushback on that statement.
I’m happy for us to do a survey to measure sex offenses, because that will give us a way to actually measure and fight the problem. I know that any nonzero number that survey finds is going to reflect poorly on me, a man in EA, even if the number is much lower than we’d expect on base rates, because of the framing effects I discussed. However, I am willing to pay that cost because I care about addressing the problem of sexual assault. But I think trying to make an estimate based on prior information will just stir people up.
Edit: I’ve set up a collaboration with the yearly EA survey team!
Cool!
I agree with all of this. Perhaps I’m too quick to extrapolate from my own experiences—I know that I’ve accidentally creeped out women in the past, and I always feel really bad about it afterwards, but this could be a bad mental model of the typical case.
These are all good points. I find it totally plausible that some individuals are responsible for many assaults. I think this is a problem we should address. And I’m really sorry to hear about your experiences.
Why do you feel it’s important to have a more accurate guess regarding the number of sexually violent people in EA? I’m in favor of trying to measure the rate of sexual assault using e.g. the EA survey, because that is a metric we can track in order to measure whether things are improving. (Ideally using a question such as “Were you assaulted in the past year?”, so our metric will be responsive year over year.) But it seems to me that time spent refining our guess based on priors would be better spent implementing measures to reduce sexual assault.
Thanks for this post. It’s brave, thorough, fair, and well-researched—a breath of fresh air compared to 99% of internet discussion on this topic.
People seemed to appreciate it when I laid out my points of disagreement with the last post of this sort, so I’m going to try doing the same for this post. Feel free to let me know (including via PM) if you think it’s a bad idea for me to do this.
Like the last post, I think this post could benefit from less uncritical acceptance of social science research. That said, my sources aren’t any better. So my comment is just an attempt to present a coherent worldview—take it with a grain of salt.
I think this post underrates the degree to which effective altruists are likely to be unrepresentative of the population at large. In particular, all the EAs I’ve met are really smart. And all the discussion I see in online EA communities is really intelligent. I don’t think there’s any IQ data that backs up these observations directly. But the 2015 EA survey found that Less Wrong was the most popular way to discover EA, and survey data on Less Wrong users seems to indicate that the average IQ on Less Wrong is around 140. My impression is that Less Wrong is responsible for a lot of “founder effects” in the EA movement (the fraction of EAs from LW was even higher in the 2014 EA survey), and that being a magnet for high-IQ people goes along with this.
Why does this matter? Because the sexual behavior of high IQ people seems to be much different than the sexual behavior of the population at large. Check out this graph from this blog post. High IQ male teens are about 3x more likely to be virgins than average, and high IQ female teens are about 5x more likely.
Why is this? There are a few possible explanations. Personally, I suspect it’s a combination of smart people prioritizing other things, and having lower libidos. (Consider that only 20% of female graduate students at MIT masturbate, compared to 70% of the female population at large—source.)
You quote a study which found that frottage offenders targeted an average of nine hundred people each. That’s definitely an interesting stat, but I think you have to be extra careful when extrapolating from “institutionalized sex offenders… mandated to receive specialized treatment” to EAs, especially given that all the research I’ve heard about indicates that prisoner IQs tend to be well below average.
Furthermore, I would expect that sex offenders who actually get imprisoned are much more blatant than average. So that’s a reason why it could be unsafe to extrapolate data from imprisoned rapists to your “average” undetected rapist.
That all said, I believe you when you say there have been cases of sexual assault in EA, and I think you have good ideas about how to stop it. Here are some of my thoughts. In some cases, I’ll be emphasizing points you already made, because our worldviews overlap a fair amount.
I think that sexual assault prevention presents a different challenge relative to a lot of other causes EAs are interested in. We are used to seeing causes as bottlenecked on money or talent, but sexual assault strikes me as a cause bottlenecked on experimentation and tribalism. It’s a topic that’s difficult to have a two-sided conversation about due to the current political environment. People tend to retreat in to bubbles lead by the most motivated individuals, who are often extremists. Sometimes the extremists suggest interventions which may actually hurt their cause, because they don’t have good awareness of how people in other bubbles are thinking.
I was really impressed by how aware you seem to be of these issues. But, I think it’s important to recognize that your willingness to write a ~30 page essay on this topic is an indicator that sexual assault is something you’re unusually sensitive to. (That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work on it; I’m glad it’s something you feel motivated to work on. I’m just saying you should keep this in mind.) Furthermore, I think it’s interesting to contrast your suicide stats with the fact that sexually harassed employees are only 1.63 times more likely to have turnover intentions. See also this article about women in Washington DC who prioritize their career over making sexual harassment allegations.
This isn’t meant to excuse sexual assault or sexual harassment. It’s meant to indicate that sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are offenses of much different magnitude. Similar to how shoving someone, punching someone so hard they get knocked out, and murdering someone are offenses of much different magnitude. Unfortunately, it seems to me that a lot of feminist discourse serves to lump these offenses of different magnitude together using terms like “rape culture”. Equivalently, imagine someone shoved another person during a bar dispute, and we condemned their action as indicative of “murder culture”.
Why does this matter? As you state in this post, our legal system doesn’t work that well for sex offenses. Our legal system works on the presumption of innocence and tries to gather evidence that a person committed a crime. But for sex offenses, there typically isn’t much evidence to gather.
Because the legal system doesn’t work that well, we have to fall back on the court of public opinion. My issue with a term like “rape culture” is that it pushes us closer to a world where a person receives the maximal sentence in the court of public opinion even for the most minor offense.
Why is this a world we don’t want to be in?
The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. This undermines the legitimacy of the effort to fight sex offenses.
In the traditional legal system, a person can commit a minor offense, pay their debt to society, and stop thinking of themselves as an offender. But if a person who commits a minor offense has no chance of re-integrating with society, that creates an incentive to attack the legitimacy of the entire system. See above.
It frames a minor sex offense in a way that’s likely to cause greater psychological harm. See also Lila’s comment.
Outrage is like antibiotics: The more it’s overused, the less well it works.
However, even if many women tolerate sexual aggressiveness well, I suspect the EA movement has an unusually high density of women who don’t. As I mentioned, high-IQ women seem to have much less sexual desire, and high-IQ people in general seem to be more anxious. So you may not be all that unrepresentative relative to the _EA_ population.
This ties in to the whole Red Pill/pickup topic. There’s a lot I could say about that, but one major point is that it is targeted at average-IQ women who like going to bars—sorority girls who say things like:
Don’t ask for permission for a first kiss. Dear lord, I hate that nonsene. Things are great and then whoa, I’ve got a pushover on my hands. No, you can’t kiss me, pussy. Goodbye.
Personally, I know of approximately 0 sorority girls in EA. And more broadly, I don’t see attitudes like this expressed frequently by women in the EA movement.
I could write another long comment on my issues with Red Pill ideas, and why I think feminist writing fails to engage productively with them. But I don’t have a ton of confidence in my views, and I’m also not sure how many guys who read that stuff will end up reading my comment. So for now I’ll just make a few points directed at those guys:
In the same way reversed stupidity is not intelligence, reversed censorship is not intelligence. Just because feminists furiously condemn red pill ideas using arguments that are bad does not mean that red pill ideas are correct.
In general, the epistemics of red pill discussion sites aren’t that great. Ideas are selected for based on whether they spread virally within the echo chamber rather than whether they’re factually supported. Reading something frequently enough can cause you to believe it’s true even if it isn’t. (This is how propaganda posters work.) If you want an evidence-based dating guide, prominent evolutionary psychologist (and effective altruist) Geoffrey Miller has a book and a website.
If sexual gratification is what you seek, there’s a lot of data showing that it’s easier for a man to get laid in environments with more women than men. Effective Altruism is not such an environment.
There are non-political ways to address this, such as better contraceptives like Vasalgel.
EA already has semi-official positions on intractable political issues like immigration. If stable two-parent families are indeed an effective way to prevent child abuse, I don’t see why we shouldn’t have a semi-official position on promoting those as well. It could help address conservative underrepresentation in the EA movement. I think if some positions are taken publicly on both sides, that increases our credibility as an independent source of truth. Otherwise we might be seen as “EA-washing” the political positions that we already held as coastal liberal types.
But really I think stable two-parent families are a bipartisan issue. For example, abortion probably helps reduce the incidence of single motherhood (though of course the ethics of abortion itself is another can of worms). I don’t think your average liberal person is actually against fatherhood or stable households, they just prioritize other outcome measures (perhaps incorrectly if the data here is right).