By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Society lets you go from an asshole to "truther" with one word

sundin13 on 09 June 2016
theprof00 said:

BUT....This number would factor in for deaths AND for population changes, even if conservatively. Still only 5% in total (18.8-21.4 <2.5%) to the number I found with about 4000 words less. Was the 4000 words worth a 2.4% difference given that the baseline being used was 20%? I'm not sure it was. I basically spent several hours finding a 1.2% change Conservative difference. Oh, I almost forgot that I was also using an incidence number from the lowest incidence numbers in time. Dude, I really think it's safely over 20%. Regardless of death or population or anything. In the future that will change. But I think it's very safe to say of all people currently alive, 20% is a workable number.

But anyway, regarding the second point, the methodological sheet mentioned the statements I made, which was published in 2006, so perhaps the questionairre has changed since then. I believe I copied and pasted the text in my big calculations post. But just in case, I'll repost it tomorrow, just to show good faith that I didn't make it up.

Let me just fudge around with the numbers for a second:

Cycle 1: 1995-2010
Alive today (data from US census): 29.398million + 113.837 = 143.235
Percent Victims: 4.7%
Number of Living Victims: 6.73million

Cycle 2: 1980-1995
Alive today: 28.686million + 85.151 = 113.837
Percent Victims: 5.69%
Number of Living Victims: 6.477million

Cycle 3: 1965-1980
Alive today: 32.887million + 52.264 = 85.151
Percent Victims: 6.6%
Number of Living Victims: 5.62million

Cycle 4: 1950-1965
Alive today: 26.139million + 26.125 = 52.264
Percent Victims: 8%
Number of Living Victims: 4.18million

Cycle 5: 1935-1950
Alive today: 15.755million + 10.37 = 26.125
Percent Victims: 10.29%
Number of Living Victims: 2.688million

Cycle 5.4: 1930-1935
Alive today: 4.37million (plus everyone older: 6million) = 10.37million
Percent Victims: 11.11%
Number of Living Victims: 1.152million

Total Number of Victims: 26.84
2010 Population: 143million

Victimization %: 18.769 (pretty damn close to your 18.8%. I must admit, I'm impressed by your formula)
Now factor in the 20% deduction from repeat victimization (within year): 15.02%
Now factor in the 18% of "rapes and sexual assaults" that were nothing more than verbal threats (this is me being nitpicky): 12.314%
And if you only want to look at rapes only: 4.506%

There are still issues with this data, but if looking for rates of what the BJS calls "Rape and Sexual Assault", saying 1 in 7 women alive in 2010 have been raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime seems pretty accurate, about 1 in 8.5 if you subtract "threats" from that number and about 1 in 23 if you are only looking at Completed Rape.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 09 June 2016
theprof00 said:
@Don
Yeah I know it's a hot button, but which fake numbers do we believe, the 90% aren't real or the 90% aren't even reported?
Wartaal was right about one thing, that it is best to just take an unbiased report like the DOJ and put the numbers to the test.

I think, especialy in Brazil, there is probably a lot of other issues involved. I know Brazil is a very sexual country. I dated a girl from Brazil and she wanted sex like 4 times a day. She complained that 2 hours of sex wasn't long enough. I also know that women in Brazil are much more assertive. So yaknow, I really don't know what to think of Brazil haha. I also know that Brazil has one of the highest disparate rates in terms of wealth where a lot of people are very poor and the rich are very few. So I can imagine that rape can be used as a tool to acquire money.
I can see that the whole situation is very complicated. On top of which, highly disparate countries tend to fund studies politically in order to spin the numbers. Brazil is very corrupt, I have heard. That doesn't really give me a lot of faith in any sort of study.

It's just where do we draw the line and say this study is good and these others aren't? I wish I knew more about the culture to say for sure. All I know, for sure, is my own experience. And in that experience I know a lot of girls who were and didn't say anything. I actually don't know a single girl who reported it. And in the workplace? Forget about it, I've worked at bars where the waitress was coerced into sex because they were going to lose their job. It's crazy.
But yeah, that's all I know for sure. I'm not sure I can really trust any numbers I see, but I do have a confirmation bias towards, for example, the numbers I found within the DOJ report.

No problem man... for me the only problem in the fake numbers is that they are used to shock and give more power where it isn't needed... If it's 1 in 4 women have been raped (what some claim in Brazil) or 1 in 20... even if 1 in 100 is unnaceptable. Same as murder, our numbers are ridiculously high, we don't need to make them bigger to pass the point, we are a lot over any acceptable point in violance in Brazil.

It depends on the woman... but we would say that in Brazil there are 3 types of NO... "Yes", "Maybe" and "No"... and it would all depend on the entonation given, how well you know the woman temper and how much she likes to play around. So it would be acceptable to insist, try different routes, but rough force would only be acceptable if that was allowed or agreed (BSM).

Brazil is very corrupt, so yes, there is a lot of girls that will try to get pregnant to marry, earn money, etc... and will be the ones that will denounce rape because is embarassed to assume that she wanted the sex (and latter discovered the guy only wanted it, or that they broke up, or that it was a gangbang and leaked, etc)... there were some reports of people being in prison for years because of false reports. But of course, the fact that a lot of woman lied about it doesn't make the crime any less serious.

The only point I make on those discussion is that in Brazil rape and violence against woman isn't because of machism or mysandri... if we compare numbers, men are even more likely to suffer from violence (even home violence), so my only problem is trying to make numbers be what they aren't and push a point that don't exist... just like the claims of homophobia in Brazil... statiscts show that percentually it's 10x more likely to be killed as a straight than gay (of course that may be well linked to your own actions as a hetero looking for fights and whatnot), but SJW want to account every death of gay person as linked to the fact that he was gay (a hate crime) which isn't the case in most cases.

So in Brazil a lot of those groups that fight for privilege want to bring attention to the violence they suffers and demand special privileges because of it, when we should always be fighting to diminish the violence as a total because in country everybody is very much exposed to it. (we also have the SJWs that like to put that 90% of incarcerated people are black and 90% of university students are white, while population have about 50% black people... but them when we see pictures of prison and university, they have the common spectre of color in Brazil... the difference is that what they call black in prison count and university differs to convey a point) because in brazil it's much more that 90% of people is mixed.

I sure would like Brazil to be a place where violance against woman, gay and black people were the real problem (not only because them I would be totally safe) because then we would be a lot easier targets to overcome and those numbers would be very clear and without interference from common crime.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

hershel_layton on 09 June 2016

This thread isn't dead yet? Holy crap...



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

theprof00 on 09 June 2016
sundin13 said:
theprof00 said:

BUT....This number would factor in for deaths AND for population changes, even if conservatively. Still only 5% in total (18.8-21.4 <2.5%) to the number I found with about 4000 words less. Was the 4000 words worth a 2.4% difference given that the baseline being used was 20%? I'm not sure it was. I basically spent several hours finding a 1.2% change Conservative difference. Oh, I almost forgot that I was also using an incidence number from the lowest incidence numbers in time. Dude, I really think it's safely over 20%. Regardless of death or population or anything. In the future that will change. But I think it's very safe to say of all people currently alive, 20% is a workable number.

But anyway, regarding the second point, the methodological sheet mentioned the statements I made, which was published in 2006, so perhaps the questionairre has changed since then. I believe I copied and pasted the text in my big calculations post. But just in case, I'll repost it tomorrow, just to show good faith that I didn't make it up.

Let me just fudge around with the numbers for a second:

Cycle 1: 1995-2010
Alive today (data from US census): 29.398million + 113.837 = 143.235
Percent Victims: 4.7%
Number of Living Victims: 6.73million

Cycle 2: 1980-1995
Alive today: 28.686million + 85.151 = 113.837
Percent Victims: 5.69%
Number of Living Victims: 6.477million

Cycle 3: 1965-1980
Alive today: 32.887million + 52.264 = 85.151
Percent Victims: 6.6%
Number of Living Victims: 5.62million

Cycle 4: 1950-1965
Alive today: 26.139million + 26.125 = 52.264
Percent Victims: 8%
Number of Living Victims: 4.18million

Cycle 5: 1935-1950
Alive today: 15.755million + 10.37 = 26.125
Percent Victims: 10.29%
Number of Living Victims: 2.688million

Cycle 5.4: 1930-1935
Alive today: 4.37million (plus everyone older: 6million) = 10.37million
Percent Victims: 11.11%
Number of Living Victims: 1.152million

Total Number of Victims: 26.84
2010 Population: 143million

Victimization %: 18.769 (pretty damn close to your 18.8%. I must admit, I'm impressed by your formula)
Now factor in the 20% deduction from repeat victimization (within year): 15.02%
Now factor in the 18% of "rapes and sexual assaults" that were nothing more than verbal threats (this is me being nitpicky): 12.314%
And if you only want to look at rapes only: 4.506%

There are still issues with this data, but if looking for rates of what the BJS calls "Rape and Sexual Assault", saying 1 in 7 women alive in 2010 have been raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime seems pretty accurate, about 1 in 8.5 if you subtract "threats" from that number and about 1 in 23 if you are only looking at Completed Rape.

Only problem I have with the math here is that you're compounding the 18% with the 30% of completed rapes, so basically remove the 18% and you'll have the right number, which I'm guessing is about 5.3 or so.



sundin13 on 09 June 2016
theprof00 said:

Only problem I have with the math here is that you're compounding the 18% with the 30% of completed rapes, so basically remove the 18% and you'll have the right number, which I'm guessing is about 5.3 or so.

I was actually compounding the 20% figure of serial victimizations with the 30% of completed rapes, but either way I'm fine with these numbers.

Thanks for being chill :)



Around the Network
theprof00 on 09 June 2016
sundin13 said:
theprof00 said:

Only problem I have with the math here is that you're compounding the 18% with the 30% of completed rapes, so basically remove the 18% and you'll have the right number, which I'm guessing is about 5.3 or so.

I was actually compounding the 20% figure of serial victimizations with the 30% of completed rapes, but either way I'm fine with these numbers.

Thanks for being chill :)

Apologies, I thought you compounded all three.

You as well, it's always nice to have a proper discussion about statistics and numbers. It's why I joined vgc in the first place :D