So this article – “5 Things More Likely To Happen To You Than Being Falsely Accused Of Rape” – has apparently been reblogged or liked more than 35,000 times on Tumblr. I’m not sure how big that is by Tumblr standards, by by bloggy standards it’s huge.
It’s also completely wrong, as Scott at Slate Star Codex points out, because – aside from all the other problems with measuring something like “false rape accusations” accurately, or for that matter the odds of lotteries or of errant space rocks – the author of the post calculated the odds of being falsely accused for any one sexual encounter and compared that to odds of other events happening ever during a lifetime.
But of course, that’s nonsense – for the comparison to be valid, the writer would have had to compare lifetime odds of a false rape accusation to lifetime odds of (being hit with a meteorite, playing in the NFL, etc).
The author of the post, Charles Clymer, hasn’t responded to Scott yet. But I don’t see any way Clymer’s apples-to-oranges method can be logically justified.
What’s notable here is not that a blogger messed up his statistics (mistakes happen), but that 35,000 folks liked or reblogged his mistake, and I think it’s fair to guess that very few of them looked skeptically at the claim and wondered “is this true?”
Scott blames it on big bad feminism:
Do not trust anything that comes out of the feminist blogosphere. When you see something in the feminist blogosphere, your default assumption should be that it is approximately as honest as this Clymer article.
In comments at his blog (where there’s a fair amount of debate between Scott and I), I responded:
This is so hyperbolic that I suspect it’s actually harmful, as it encourages either team rallying (“damn straight, feminists are all liars!”) or defensiveness (“anti-feminist insults”) instead of thought.
I do think that you’re talking about a real phenomenon, but it’s not at all limited to the feminist blogosphere (nor is it as universal in the feminist blogosphere as you imply). If you see more than the usual number of bad stats in the feminist blogosphere, that is probably because your own interests lead you to look more for those bad stats than for bad stats in (say) gun blogs (both sides), climate change skepticism blogs, anti-evolution blogs, truther blogs, tea party blogs, etc..
That said, I don’t disagree with you that it’s all-too-common for feminists to accept false statistics as long as those statistics align with our confirmation biases. I think this is a more severe problem on the internet, and probably most severe on Tumblr and similar social media. But I’ve also observed the same problem with offline feminism, including some feminist academics, which is pretty shameful.
I think a lot of this comes from the culture of contempt that dominates contemporary politics (I can’t say if it dominated politics in the past). The more we view people who disagree with us as irredeemably evil and acting out of bad motives, the more difficult it becomes for any criticism to seem credible enough to take seriously. This makes it extremely unlikely that bad statistics will be caught and discredited within a movement, even if the mistakes are pointed out by outsiders.
Treating this as something especially unique and toxic within feminism is a mistake, I think, not only because I’m a feminist, but because it’s a misdiagnosis. The tendency I’m talking about is happening throughout our political culture, among feminists and anti-feminists, liberals and conservatives, etc etc. An analysis that singles out feminists as extra-evil-demagogues is an analysis that is wrong about reality and thus unlikely to offer any good solutions.
* * *
Related post: Are Feminist Blog Stats Atypically Bad?
“Treating this as something especially unique and toxic within feminism is a mistake, I think, not only because I’m a feminist, but because it’s a misdiagnosis. The tendency I’m talking about is happening throughout our political culture, among feminists and anti-feminists, liberals and conservatives, etc etc.”
This a thousand times.
I don’t know if it is worse, but I sure feel like I’m seeing deep echo chamber action EVERYWHERE. Christian groups, gay groups, lefties, righties, it is really sad. I think it has turned into my hobbyhorse in the last 3-4 years, but I swear it seems to be getting worse. Don’t demonize the other side. Seriously, it is made up mostly of normal people who happen to believe mostly what you believe with pretty slight differences. Christian homeschoolers and feminists BOTH really love their kids! Seriously!
As a rather intensive user of tumblr (in fact that was my previous stop in my internet trawling tonight), a couple of points:
– 35,000 hits isn’t enough to put it in the upper echelons of tumblr posts, but it’s many times more likes/reblogs than most posts get. (I don’t really do much feminist/social justice stuff on tumblr, but as a comparison: the biggest posts in the feminist blogosphere I’ve seen have a few hundred trackbacks at best, maybe a few thousand comments; the equivalent on tumblr will have a few hundred thousand likes/reblogs, maybe a few million. The curve is about the same: the vast majority of posts only get a few reactions, but there’s an exponential tail.)
– You say:
That’s actually hard to tell. People can add captions or extra text at the bottom of posts, and when they get reblogged, they get reblogged with that extra text unless it’s deliberately removed. It’s hard to know without looking at the posts if people are reblogging/liking the link, or reblogging/liking a refutation of the link. Unfortunately the tumblr interface makes it hard to examine those individual posts, but I did manage to find that Wil Wheaton had reblogged a version of the link that had attached text highlighting the quote:
It’s a safe bet that a large chunk (though not a majority, probably) of the likes/reblogs can be traced back to his reblog, and so may have been focused on that quote in particular rather than the article as a whole. Which doesn’t excuse the statistical problem, or belie your point that they didn’t investigate the claim first.
35K notes on a month-old post is fairly substantial, though not really astonishingly fast, particularly from something well-known like BuzzFeed.
There are two reasons why people give a post notes: agreement or disagreement. That is, people will reblog and like things they support, and they will reblog to correct/mock/fact-dispute things they don’t agree with. I don’t bother reblogging-to-disagree for people who I think are really clearly ill-intentioned and awful, but I’ll do it for posts where I think the previous posters are mistaken/confused/wrong but not terrible.
I am not really sure how commonplace that approach is – certainly people are more likely to reblog content that produces strong emotions than content they don’t care about, and “this is the worst thing” is a strong emotion.
Amp, you’re interacting with the post in a way that would involve giving it notes, if this were Tumblr, including a “like” from me (which would count towards original post’s stats though it’s really a “like” of your criticism) and a reblog with this commentary on the commentary in it. :P
My back-of-the-envelope estimation is that 1% to 2% of the Tumblr population fact-checks anything. Of that fraction, many will not bother to fact-check this, because a) they agree with the sentiment, even if it is unsupported by data, b) this doesn’t look wildly unbelievable at first glance, and c) it’s from a relatively-reputable source. By relatively-reputable I mean Buzzfeed is a journalistic outfit, not an individual with a blog description like “15 / f / vermont. art. love. food. clothes.” Which is not to say that I have anything against teenagers blogging about the things they like, just that I doubt their commitment to statistical accuracy.
This analysis is correct; everyone has a tendency to blindly believe anything from ‘their side’ of an issue, which is why it’s so important to fact-check all claims. Being exposed as defending a false claim does more to hurt a cause than to help it.
Of course feminists aren’t more likely to do this one way or the other. It’s just that feminists (and liberals generally) get extra tweaking for this sort of thing because we are, in theory, more invested in accuracy than our opponents–so it’s fun to tweak us for inaccuracy just like it’s fun to tweak social ultraconservatives for violating their self proclaimed “Family values” platforms.
That said:
When you ask “what does it mean to be falsely accused of a crime?” people will generally answer “you’re accused of something you didn’t do.” That is what “falsely accused” means in common parlance. That’s simply how people talk: “the cops think I stole a purse. I’m being falsely accused!”
When people say “there are almost no false accusations in rape” they are adopting the definition of the government, which requires that you basically prove falsity beyond a reasonable doubt, or have other unusually credible DISproof of the accusation. That simply isn’t a consistent match for how the word is used.
Reporting “false” in that way is a bit like reporting “rape prevalence” and only counting those rapes in which someone confessed, was found guilty, or was held civilly liable. It’s deliberately confusing the issue.
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”
Simon and Garfunkel weren’t commenting on anything particularly new. What’s new is the easy access to faux authority and the speed and breadth of which it can be disseminated. Common sense is a self-contradictory term in that it’s far from common (or at least, far from commonly applied).
The guy in the cube next to me has a sign up on his cube that I think sums it up neatly:
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.”
– Abraham Lincoln
I don’t recall anyone claiming false accusations are rare who was using a particularly narrow definition of “false accusation.” You might be conflating “there are almost no false accusations” with “default to believing the accuser”? The statistic I usually see from feminists is that false accusations of rape are about as common as with other crimes.
Hershele, from the linked post:
GaW:
Really? “Of course”? That’s a pretty definitive statement. Where’s your proof?
These are pretty broad claims characterizing both feminists (as a group) and “their opponents” – whoever they might be. Again, what proof do you have that permits you to state that feminists are more interested in accuracy than their “opponents” as if it was established fact?
Is that what this is? Inaccuracy? Or is it a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth and represent false information as true in order to advance a political agenda? Or is it a rush to judgement once one sees information that confirms one’s own biases?
I’m curious about seeing these as an example of “fun”. In the latter case you would be exposing either personal failure (succumbing to temptation) or, in the case of a more extended and knowledgeable set of acts, hypocrisy. Hypocrites should be exposed and discredited, certainly. I don’t think it’s *fun* to celebrate someone’s failure and the pain it causes them and their family (especially if it’s more of a one-time instance of weakness) – and the inability of someone who professes an ideal to live up to it does not invalidate that ideal. In the case that initiated this thread we aren’t sure what we have – a simple slip-up or something more calculated.
Because feminists are a reasonably diverse subset of humans, and AFAIK this is a relatively universal human trait. “Of course” was poetic license, I don’t have (or know how one could really have) proof. I could, of course, be wrong.
Generally speaking, feminism is reasonably well associated with liberalism and–especially in the context of certain subsets of feminism–academia. Both liberalism and academia wear the “science and reason” banner proudly, and seem to try to associate themselves with it.
But as to what “permits me to state” something: Amp permits me. As he does you. Ain’t speech grand?
You can certainly feel free to distinguish between various subsets, i.e. “inaccurate” versus “inaccurate and ___.” I didn’t make that distinction.
It may not be fun for you. But it’s fun for me, at least sometimes. Tweaking people you dislike is generally pretty fun, and–again–the enjoyment seems to be a pretty universal human trait.
Academic feminism does not wear the “science and reason” banner proudly, the major movements are standpoint theory, the strong program, post-modernism…
There is something unique and toxic within feminism. Feminist research methods have extreme hostility to quantitfication and statistical thinking. This sets the tone and the movement messes up because they don’t care, aren’t trained, or just use them instrumentally for consciousness raising.
That’s not comparable with climate change deniers, tea partiers, or the gun lobby, who mostly just adopt the methods of climatology, economics or criminology.
First, mea culpa on the “permits you to state” phrasing. Proper phrasing would have been “supports your statement”. My apologies.
Yes, but the concept that they can be classified as a separate group by means of a particular political/social philosophy means that they have a characteristic that might – might – cause them to not be as likely or not to blindly accept a given statement as fact when it concerns something that contradicts or supports their philosophy. One can dispute this, but “of course” means that you believe that this is beyond debate – which it certainly is not.
But whether they do so truthfully is nowhere near self-evident.
True. So let me point out that there can be various reasons why someone makes an inaccurate statement, and that motive makes a rather large difference in whether the person making the inaccurate statement is worthy of support and what the motives and integrity of those who support them are.
Tweaking people you dislike can definitely be fun. Going to the point of taking pleasure in someone else’s pain is certainly human, but hardly admirable.
Yeah, it’s surprising to me that an otherwise-intelligent person would believe this is somehow unique to feminism. I mean, he has heard of Snopes, right? Any time I see an unsourced political email or facebook share I assume it’s BS until proven otherwise, and my assumption is generally correct. (Even if the facebook message originates from a well-known but only sort-of-respected political source, e.g. MoveOn, it seems to be much more likely to be accurate.)
Here’s an example that I came across just today of people not fact-checking or even reading the article they’re sharing. Not feminists doing it.
My impression is that stuff that’s not merely political, but that you can slam you political opponents with, is especially resistant to skepticism.
There’s something toxic and unique? Perhaps you can specify what this thing found in no other group, philosophy or ideology actually is. I mean you are certain that this thing is unique, what is it, this thing?
In what ways do feminist research methods differ from other sociological research methods?
Your last paragraph is just laughable when climate change deniers are one of your examples. Perhaps you meant ant-vaxxers instead of Tea Partiers. Although,Ime, there’s tremendous overlap between the two groups.
What’s an “ant-vaxxer”?
Oh, did you need me to take the 3 seconds that you can’t afford to look that up for you?
Unbelievable.
Dial it back a few notches, please. Thanks.
Jake,
In small fairness to RonF, you did write “ant-vaxxer” and not “anti-vaxxer”.
If I weren’t already familiar with the “anti-vaxxer” term I might have thought you were talking about insect epidemiology.
Kohai:
“Ant-vaxxer” works equally well in a Google search.
Ron’s question may simply have been rhetorical — in essence, a typo call-out. That’s not his usual MO, which suggests that it was a real question. If so, then the fact that he was unwilling to perform the simplest Google search in order to understand what Jake was saying tends to signal a basic unwillingness to put any effort at all into understanding Jake’s position before replying to it. That may underlie Jake’s frustration. I know that Ron has frustrated me in exactly that way, in the past.
It’s not morally wrong to not want to do that tiny amount of work before posting. But it does signal your estimation of the value of the conversation, and the value of the other person’s contribution to it.
If one is going to post, one should at least try to make it worth people’s while.
Grace
You may be right, Kohai. I completely missed the typo in both my comment and Ron’s response. If it was merely a call out on my typo, I apologize to Ron. My mistake.
That’s all well and good, Jake Squid, but RonF certainly should have known that an ant-vaxxer is a fancy word for aardvark.
-Jut
I’m really glad you’re angry Jake, but be angry with academic feminism, not me for pointing out their views. If you really need me to repeat what I said:
Academic feminism is heavily subjectivist, as I said “the major movements are standpoint theory, the strong program, post-modernism”. Climate change deniers, tea partiers, and the gun lobby aren’t.
“Feminist research methods have extreme hostility to quantitfication and statistical thinking.” In the 1960s sociology was mainly quantitative and survey based. Feminists did not adopt these methods, there was a battle between ‘malestream’ sociology and feminists, which feminists won – rejecting statistical methods and adopting techniques like in depth biographical interview and participant observation.
Why? CC deniers spend all their time arguing the instrument record and computer models are being misinterpreted, and when correctly interpreted there is no warming or prospect of warming. You can’t say they don’t engage with climatological methods.
Abbe, that’s ridiculous. An enormous amount of feminist research doesn’t fall within what you term “the major movements.” There’s plenty of good qualitative research that I would describe as “feminist,” in that the research deals with feminist concerns – see the campus sexual assault study, for example (pdf link).
There is also plenty of excellent qualitative research, like Promises I Can Keep.
Some feminist (and non-feminist) sociological research methods do not use quantification or statistics, not because feminists are “hostile” to them, but because the researchers believe simple quantified methods are insufficient to characterize the human experience they’re attempting to describe. They are different tools for different questions; feminists (and other researchers) are perfectly happy to use statistics and quantification where it is useful.
The gun lobby is not hostile to quantified research? Here’s a history of the NRA’s pressure on the CDC regarding gun violence studies. And while some among the climate change deniers engage with the science, some others deny it as a reflex, which is why for example there is enough material for an entire blog of political cartoons entitled “If Global Warming Is Real Why Is It Cold?” (I admit, I steer well clear of the Tea Party so I lack information to address that part of your claim one way or another.)
As a general question–is there actually a widespread belief that feminists are uniquely hostile to statistics? I’d never run into that before, and as a first impression it’s giving me echoes of this xkcd cartoon–like it’s a confirmation bias thing that ties into preexisting beliefs* that women aren’t as good at math as men.
(*A difference in ability is supported by measurements, of course, but most people in my experience overestimate the size of the actual difference.)
Groan.
Is anyone else finding that these comment threads show up with an https connection and an invalid certificate?
Not happening to me, g&w.
Thanks, Jake. I’d be interested in knowing if it is or isn’t happening to anyone else, so please don’t hesitate to post a response to G&W’s question, even if the response is “not happening here.”
G&W, what browser and operating system are you using, if you don’t mind saying?
It doesn’t happen on my PC desktop using chrome.
It DOES happen on my android phone using chrome.
—Myca
The certificate issuer is Parallels Panel, maker of Plesk, a web hosting automation program. Not sure if that helps. it shows up on my Windows XP firefox machines. Anyone for whom it doesn’t show up may have created an exception for Parallels Panel. Once you’ve done that, the warning no longer appears.
I have no problems using Firefox on win XP, 7, or 8. I also have no problem accessing via safari on an iOS device. I’ve never needed to create an exception, it’s just worked as expected on all of those os/browsers for me.
I deleted my certificate exception and can’t get the warning again, even if I access https://amptoons.com/blog and https://www.amptoons.com/blog explicitly.
It shows up on firefox and chrome, win7ultimate64
Removing the secure connection makes it function fine, which leads me to wonder why you’re using https at all.
G&W, I may indeed have overlooked that. But it’s not an inaccurate definition; I think in any context, if you talk about “false accusations,” people will understand that to mean accusations that are, um, not true. “Sam falsely accused Pat of a crime” is interpreted as “Sam accused Pat of a crime, but Pat did not commit that crime” regardless of what specific crime is under discussion. Are you maintaining that Lisak’s definition actually means something else?
Hershele Ostropoler:
If that is the case then cases of intentional malicious false accusations are lumped together with cases of mistaken identities (happens in police line-ups) as well as cases where the police find that the criteria for a crime hasn’t been established (victim can’t recall what happened the next day and report it as a rape, police interrogates witnesses or sees video footage showing she consents enthusiastically, mens rea aren’t established as the accused had a reasonable belief that the given consent was real).
All three are cases where A falsely accused B of a crime and all three means that A accused B of a crime, but B did in fact not commit that crime.
Another example would be where a person from a state A with consent based rape laws is visiting a state B with force-based rape laws and that person is then victimized by a person who have sex with her without use of force or threats, but nevertheless without her consent. If she reports it as rape to the the local police she by your definition has filed a false accusation since the perpetrator haven’t committed the crime of rape according to state B’s laws.
That said, my impression is that most people who argue that false rape accussations are very rare talk exclusively about intentional malicious false accusations and thus of a subset of false accusation as you have defined it.
The problem here may be that a falsehood is more easily interpreted as a lie, rather than a mistake(n identity) or a misunderstanding (of rape laws). If I state something and someone told me I just told a falsehood I’d think they accused me of lying, not that they pointed out that I was mistaken. English is not my first language so that might be because of that though although I note that the dictionaries I checked listed “a lie”, “lying” and “the state of being untrue” as definitions. This could lead one to think Lisak talks about intentionally maliciously false accusations – those where the victim lied rather than also including false accusations where the victim was mistaken in some way. I haven’t read the Lisak paper so I don’t know whether he includes those or not, but if I were to base my opinion on that quote alone I’d be inclined to think that he only includes that particular subset which involves lies by the accuser.