1.9/170 is about 1.1176%. 4 decimal places is still an unacceptable level of rounding here, but it’sa damn sight better than 0/1 decimal place. Both of you were off on this.
It is definitely right to split rape and sexual assault, they’re very different crimes - combining them is double counting which is a poor faith tactic used to inflate numbers.
1.1176% per year DEFINITELY does not translate directly to that for a lifetime. To put it into context, if you have a 1% chance of being shot each day (assuming BINS) you have a [(0.99)^365]*100% (or 2.6%) of not being shot at all that year - note binomial is not appropriate for rape odds calculations but it’s a nice example of how low odds per year DO NOT translate to low odds per lifetime.
Self report is absolute garbage - it’s the worst form of stat gathering and often leads to socially advantageous answers being given. Using self-report stats as a keystone to an argument is dangerous at best.
The “known rapist” is a tricky one, as it depends how you define rape. Sex under the influence of alcohol you later regret - tricky to place in the at home (you knew them enough to go home with) vs stranger (did you really know them). While it’s nice to give clear cut numbers, this isn’t a clear cut scenario.
/Statsrant
Seems to me you both care about this topic - sounds to me like you should both go data hunting and explore the topic together. Two opposing perspectives makes a great paper, and you generally learn more!
My two cents - being alone with someone is always risky. Trying to assign which is riskier (men or women) is foolish, it creates the dynamic of “men vs women” rather than the desired “everyone vs rapists”.
Erm…
I think there are errors on both parts here…
1.9/170 is about 1.1176%. 4 decimal places is still an unacceptable level of rounding here, but it’sa damn sight better than 0/1 decimal place. Both of you were off on this.
It is definitely right to split rape and sexual assault, they’re very different crimes - combining them is double counting which is a poor faith tactic used to inflate numbers.
1.1176% per year DEFINITELY does not translate directly to that for a lifetime. To put it into context, if you have a 1% chance of being shot each day (assuming BINS) you have a [(0.99)^365]*100% (or 2.6%) of not being shot at all that year - note binomial is not appropriate for rape odds calculations but it’s a nice example of how low odds per year DO NOT translate to low odds per lifetime.
Self report is absolute garbage - it’s the worst form of stat gathering and often leads to socially advantageous answers being given. Using self-report stats as a keystone to an argument is dangerous at best.
The “known rapist” is a tricky one, as it depends how you define rape. Sex under the influence of alcohol you later regret - tricky to place in the at home (you knew them enough to go home with) vs stranger (did you really know them). While it’s nice to give clear cut numbers, this isn’t a clear cut scenario.
/Statsrant
Seems to me you both care about this topic - sounds to me like you should both go data hunting and explore the topic together. Two opposing perspectives makes a great paper, and you generally learn more!
My two cents - being alone with someone is always risky. Trying to assign which is riskier (men or women) is foolish, it creates the dynamic of “men vs women” rather than the desired “everyone vs rapists”.