15 percent of women are raped while incapacitated during their freshman year at college

[Toni]

Really? Because that's not the impression I get. I get the impression that those same objections would disappear entirely if the published results showed that fewer than 5% of incoming freshmen women were victims of sexual assault and those were all committed off campus by black non athletes admitted to the university by affirmative action program.

Then perhaps you should try reading what people are actually saying in their objections as opposed to managing to find an impression hidden within them that's something you want to argue against. I don't believe any of the objections in the thread would be affected by what the results happen to be. The issues are with the methodology, not the conclusions.

I have read every single word of objection to the study.

I have yet to read a single thread about rape on this forum or the old one where the same objections weren't raised over and over and over again.

It seems it's just a lot more comfortable for some people to debate the meaning of any term, bemoan the lack of single definition of rape, drunk, incapacitated, and so on than than to actually discuss the issues this study or any of the others pose about sexual assault.

My conclusion is my own but it's based upon reading a whole lot of these threads with the usual suspects chiming in with their usual complaints.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Then perhaps you should try reading what people are actually saying in their objections as opposed to managing to find an impression hidden within them that's something you want to argue against. I don't believe any of the objections in the thread would be affected by what the results happen to be. The issues are with the methodology, not the conclusions.

I have read every single word of objection to the study.

I have yet to read a single thread about rape on this forum or the old one where the same objections weren't raised over and over and over again.

It seems it's just a lot more comfortable for some people to debate the meaning of any term, bemoan the lack of single definition of rape, drunk, incapacitated, and so on than than to actually discuss the issues this study or any of the others pose about sexual assault.

My conclusion is my own but it's based upon reading a whole lot of these threads with the usual suspects chiming in with their usual complaints.

No, that would be you filtering the responses through an extremely tinted set of glasses to see what you want to see, as opposed to what's there. The methodology in this study is flawed in all the ways which have been exhaustively covered and it wouldn't matter if it found a complete absense of sexual assault or an overwhelming epidemic of sexual assault because this study gives no information about the incidence of sexual assault amongst the population it was studying. It's a research paper, so the precision of the definitions it uses are absolutely critical to any kind of discussion about what it's purporting to research and not some kind of side issue.

You can fake the moral highground as much as you want in order to pretend that the people arguing against you are secretly trying to promote some kind of pro-rape agenda because of evil, but that doesn't make it the case.

 

[ronburgundy]

http://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.829

The study's definition of incapacitated rape (IR)

We defined IR as any of the four penetrative acts (oral sex, attempted intercourse, completed intercourse, or anal sex) that occurred because of the perpetrator tactic of victim incapacitation. Participants were considered to have experienced IR during the study year if they met these criteria at one or more assessment occasions (first semester, second semester, summer).

First, that has nothing to do with how "incapacitated" was defined for women who responded to the survey. It was not defined at all for them.

Second, your quote isn't even how the study actually defined incapacitated rape. The phrase "because of the perpetrator tactic of victim incapacitation" is pure non-empirical assumptions and invalid interpretation on their part. What matters in science is not what researchers pretend they are measuring but what and how the actually measure. Those specific methods determine how the concepts were actually defined as it relates to any of the data provided. Their methods do not support the authors' interpretation of a causality presumed by saying the sex occurred "because of" incapacitation, nor do the methods in any way indicate that the respondents were "victims" of anything or that the other person employed a "tactic" (which presumes deliberate intent) of using the woman's intoxication to have sex with them.

Their actual definition nothing more than the exact question they asked these women. Everything else is interpretation based in unfounded and/or refuted assumptions on their part.

That stated definition actually reflects nothing more than the conclusions the author's are making, not the definition given to the respondents or the definition that applies to anything in their data. What it shows is the gross incompetence of these researchers in actually employing empirical methods that fit their theoretical concept or provide and support for what they wanted to and did draw conclusions about.

 

[ronburgundy]

.. and that is the issue we have with the surveys purported results.

Really? Because that's not the impression I get. I get the impression that those same objections would disappear entirely if the published results showed that fewer than 5% of incoming freshmen women were victims of sexual assault and those were all committed off campus by black non athletes admitted to the university by affirmative action program.

That is pure projection on your part. You provide zero rational support for their validity of their empirical methods and blindly ignore every reasonable objection that is grounded in the most basic principles of empirical research required to be understood by any undergrad to pass an introductory research methods course.

The problem is that the methods are rife with many sources of both random and systematic error as a measure of incapacitated rape. Although the systematic errors are of the sort that are more likley to produce false positives than false negatives, that just suggests that the actually % is less than 15%, but the real problem is that the range of values in which the true % falls is so broad that the study tells us nothing.

It is hard to believe that you are incapable of grasping these rather simple issues, thus suggesting that your defense of the study is grounded in entirely in the result being compatible with your ideology and political objectives.

 

[Toni]

Really? Because that's not the impression I get. I get the impression that those same objections would disappear entirely if the published results showed that fewer than 5% of incoming freshmen women were victims of sexual assault and those were all committed off campus by black non athletes admitted to the university by affirmative action program.

That is pure projection on your part. You provide zero rational support for their validity of their empirical methods and blindly ignore every reasonable objection that is grounded in the most basic principles of empirical research required to be understood by any undergrad to pass an introductory research methods course.

The problem is that the methods are rife with many sources of both random and systematic error as a measure of incapacitated rape. Although the systematic errors are of the sort that are more likley to produce false positives than false negatives, that just suggests that the actually % is less than 15%, but the real problem is that the range of values in which the true % falls is so broad that the study tells us nothing.

It is hard to believe that you are incapable of grasping these rather simple issues, thus suggesting that your defense of the study is grounded in entirely in the result being compatible with your ideology and political objectives.

Nah, I've just read a lot of these threads for a lot of years. There is absolutely no attempt made, ever, to do anything except discredit whatever study is being 'discussed' by all of the usual suspects. Welcome to the club.

 

[Toni]

I have read every single word of objection to the study.

I have yet to read a single thread about rape on this forum or the old one where the same objections weren't raised over and over and over again.

It seems it's just a lot more comfortable for some people to debate the meaning of any term, bemoan the lack of single definition of rape, drunk, incapacitated, and so on than than to actually discuss the issues this study or any of the others pose about sexual assault.

My conclusion is my own but it's based upon reading a whole lot of these threads with the usual suspects chiming in with their usual complaints.

No, that would be you filtering the responses through an extremely tinted set of glasses to see what you want to see, as opposed to what's there. The methodology in this study is flawed in all the ways which have been exhaustively covered and it wouldn't matter if it found a complete absense of sexual assault or an overwhelming epidemic of sexual assault because this study gives no information about the incidence of sexual assault amongst the population it was studying. It's a research paper, so the precision of the definitions it uses are absolutely critical to any kind of discussion about what it's purporting to research and not some kind of side issue.

You can fake the moral highground as much as you want in order to pretend that the people arguing against you are secretly trying to promote some kind of pro-rape agenda because of evil, but that doesn't make it the case.

Snort.


So, care to actually discuss incapacitated rape on university campuses?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, care to actually discuss incapacitated rape on university campuses?

Yes. Hence the problems with this study and the rationale behind every post discussing the issues with how it measures it.

 

[Toni]

So, care to actually discuss incapacitated rape on university campuses?

Yes. Hence the problems with this study and the rationale behind every post discussing the issues with how it measures it.

So, the real answer is no, because you haven't. And won't.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes. Hence the problems with this study and the rationale behind every post discussing the issues with how it measures it.

So, the real answer is no, because you haven't. And won't.

If we had a thread about that, I'd be happy to. Start one and I'll join in.

This is a thread about a study which purports to make a measurement of that but actually doesn't. The objections are focusing on the methodology of that study and how it makes the conclusions of that study irrelevant. It is no more important that the study is about sexual assault rates than it would be if the study were about campus eating habits - it wouldn't give us enough information about what students are eating to be able to draw conclusions on the subject.

Nobody except you is talking about incapacitated rape on campuses in general. What everyone else is talking about (at least recently, there may be counter-examples somewhere in the thread) is that this particular study does a poor job of measuring it.

We're not doing that because we like rape. We're doing that because somebody started a thread about a study which has methodological problems.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't see the definition of incapacited in the link. I assume it's somewhere between "They had a sip of beer" and "They were passed out drunk on the floor". How did they measure incapacitation?

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

Unwanted sexual act involving oral, anal or vaginal penetration that occurs after the victim voluntarily uses drugs or alcohol. The victim is passed out or awake but too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

 

[Toni]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

Unwanted sexual act involving oral, anal or vaginal penetration that occurs after the victim voluntarily uses drugs or alcohol. The victim is passed out or awake but too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

This is information that is useful only to those who are interested in discussing the subject at hand: incapacitated rape at universities.

It's much easier to debate the meaning of 'is.'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

Unwanted sexual act involving oral, anal or vaginal penetration that occurs after the victim voluntarily uses drugs or alcohol. The victim is passed out or awake but too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

Now, that there is a good and well performed study. They provide, in detail, the questions that they asked. They have a control group to match the data against. They give very specific details of the terms that they use. Nobody needs to guess or make assumptions about what they're measuring.

Doing a comparison between the this study and the OP study, they didn't ask the same questions as in the one that you linked to, they had a set of questions based on some other study. Given that the precise wording of the question is key to analyzing the answers, we still can't know what the OP study was actually measuring. Do we know if the definition of incapacitated is the same in the OP study as this study? The OP study went out of its way to provide definitions for some of the terms that it used, despite also providing references for other studies which used similar terms, but didn't do so for that, so I'm not sure and they also don't say if the women surveyed were given a definition of incapacitated, so we don't even know if they were answering what the researchers thought they were answering. It's the job of the people doing the study to define their terms and have their study be a self-contained work where the references are items for further followup and to back up their own results, as opposed to things that readers need to search through to get to yet another maybe about what their own study was trying to say.

This study lays out in detail all the problems which I have with the OP study. It shows that it's possible to do this sort of research well and come to conclusions which are backed up by the data they used to come to those conclusions. There's no excuse for the lazy, half-assed work like the OP study did. Those of us who are interested in the subject of incapacitated rape at university need to promote studies like this one which give actual data and reliable conclusions as opposed to tripe like the OP one which do neither. It's only good data about the problem which allows one to go to the next step of working to deal with the problem.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

Now, that there is a good and well performed study. They provide, in detail, the questions that they asked. They have a control group to match the data against. They give very specific details of the terms that they use. Nobody needs to guess or make assumptions about what they're measuring.

Doing a comparison between the this study and the OP study, they didn't ask the same questions as in the one that you linked to, they had a set of questions based on some other study. Given that the precise wording of the question is key to analyzing the answers, we still can't know what the OP study was actually measuring. Do we know if the definition of incapacitated is the same in the OP study as this study? The OP study went out of its way to provide definitions for some of the terms that it used, despite also providing references for other studies which used similar terms, but didn't do so for that, so I'm not sure and they also don't say if the women surveyed were given a definition of incapacitated, so we don't even know if they were answering what the researchers thought they were answering. It's the job of the people doing the study to define their terms and have their study be a self-contained work where the references are items for further followup and to back up their own results, as opposed to things that readers need to search through to get to yet another maybe about what their own study was trying to say.

This study lays out in detail all the problems which I have with the OP study. It shows that it's possible to do this sort of research well and come to conclusions which are backed up by the data they used to come to those conclusions. There's no excuse for the lazy, half-assed work like the OP study did. Those of us who are interested in the subject of incapacitated rape at university need to promote studies like this one which give actual data and reliable conclusions as opposed to tripe like the OP one which do neither. It's only good data about the problem which allows one to go to the next step of working to deal with the problem.

You are not the target audience for the peer-reviewed study published in a journal. The typical readers would know what "incapacitated" means, for example. Because you are not the target audience, it means you'd have to go and figure these things out...mostly by obtaining the requisite knowledge in the field. One way to help that would be to read up on the references or some books. It would be a similar situation if you were reading an astrophysics study in a peer-reviewed journal. There would be terms you'd need to look up and you'd need to build a foundation on the topic before completely understanding the paper.

 

[Toni]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

Now, that there is a good and well performed study. They provide, in detail, the questions that they asked. They have a control group to match the data against. They give very specific details of the terms that they use. Nobody needs to guess or make assumptions about what they're measuring.

Doing a comparison between the this study and the OP study, they didn't ask the same questions as in the one that you linked to, they had a set of questions based on some other study. Given that the precise wording of the question is key to analyzing the answers, we still can't know what the OP study was actually measuring. Do we know if the definition of incapacitated is the same in the OP study as this study? The OP study went out of its way to provide definitions for some of the terms that it used, despite also providing references for other studies which used similar terms, but didn't do so for that, so I'm not sure and they also don't say if the women surveyed were given a definition of incapacitated, so we don't even know if they were answering what the researchers thought they were answering. It's the job of the people doing the study to define their terms and have their study be a self-contained work where the references are items for further followup and to back up their own results, as opposed to things that readers need to search through to get to yet another maybe about what their own study was trying to say.

This study lays out in detail all the problems which I have with the OP study. It shows that it's possible to do this sort of research well and come to conclusions which are backed up by the data they used to come to those conclusions. There's no excuse for the lazy, half-assed work like the OP study did. Those of us who are interested in the subject of incapacitated rape at university need to promote studies like this one which give actual data and reliable conclusions as opposed to tripe like the OP one which do neither. It's only good data about the problem which allows one to go to the next step of working to deal with the problem.

Yep. Still unwilling to talk about the issue. Not a problem I notice you have when someone starts a thread with a study on other issues.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are not the target audience for the peer-reviewed study published in a journal. The typical readers would know what "incapacitated" means, for example. Because you are not the target audience, it means you'd have to go and figure these things out...mostly by obtaining the requisite knowledge in the field. One way to help that would be to read up on the references or some books. It would be a similar situation if you were reading an astrophysics study in a peer-reviewed journal. There would be terms you'd need to look up and you'd need to build a foundation on the topic before completely understanding the paper.

Firstly, that's just plain not the way that references work. The study which you linked to was also a study like this and they included all their terms. That's how good studies do things. They may be using it in a way that their peers in the field would understand them or they may be using them slightly differently and those differences may or may not be relevant to what's being measured. Without definitions, we don't know.

Secondly, in the OP study, what questions do you feel were the participants asked? Specifically. IIRC, you've indicated in previous threads about polls and the like that you're well aware that the way that a question is worded can influence the answers given to those questions. Not knowing exactly what they were asked could lead to significant skewing of the results.

Thirdly, even if their academic peers in the industry understand the precise definitions of what is meant by the terms like incapacitated, do the participants in the study? There was no indication given that these participants were educated in what the academic definitions of these terms in the questions they were answering were. If readers of the study who aren't the target audience can get confused because they don't have the requisite knowledge, wouldn't the same apply to the participants who are giving them the data for the study? The study you linked to included a list of the key terms used so that everybody was operating off of the same page. That's how proper research is done and is one of the things which separates it from lazy, half-assesd reasearch.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. Still unwilling to talk about the issue. Not a problem I notice you have when someone starts a thread with a study on other issues.

Stop trying to promote your pro-rape agenda by advocating a lack of study about the issue.

 

[bigfield]

Now, that there is a good and well performed study. They provide, in detail, the questions that they asked. They have a control group to match the data against. They give very specific details of the terms that they use. Nobody needs to guess or make assumptions about what they're measuring.

Doing a comparison between the this study and the OP study, they didn't ask the same questions as in the one that you linked to, they had a set of questions based on some other study. Given that the precise wording of the question is key to analyzing the answers, we still can't know what the OP study was actually measuring. Do we know if the definition of incapacitated is the same in the OP study as this study? The OP study went out of its way to provide definitions for some of the terms that it used, despite also providing references for other studies which used similar terms, but didn't do so for that, so I'm not sure and they also don't say if the women surveyed were given a definition of incapacitated, so we don't even know if they were answering what the researchers thought they were answering. It's the job of the people doing the study to define their terms and have their study be a self-contained work where the references are items for further followup and to back up their own results, as opposed to things that readers need to search through to get to yet another maybe about what their own study was trying to say.

This study lays out in detail all the problems which I have with the OP study. It shows that it's possible to do this sort of research well and come to conclusions which are backed up by the data they used to come to those conclusions. There's no excuse for the lazy, half-assed work like the OP study did. Those of us who are interested in the subject of incapacitated rape at university need to promote studies like this one which give actual data and reliable conclusions as opposed to tripe like the OP one which do neither. It's only good data about the problem which allows one to go to the next step of working to deal with the problem.

You are not the target audience for the peer-reviewed study published in a journal. The typical readers would know what "incapacitated" means, for example. Because you are not the target audience, it means you'd have to go and figure these things out...mostly by obtaining the requisite knowledge in the field. One way to help that would be to read up on the references or some books. It would be a similar situation if you were reading an astrophysics study in a peer-reviewed journal. There would be terms you'd need to look up and you'd need to build a foundation on the topic before completely understanding the paper.

If the researchers' methods aren't documented then there is no way to reproduce their experiment.

Simply assuming other scientists will know the exact method of the study, without it being documented, is just lousy work.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are not the target audience for the peer-reviewed study published in a journal. The typical readers would know what "incapacitated" means, for example. Because you are not the target audience, it means you'd have to go and figure these things out...mostly by obtaining the requisite knowledge in the field. One way to help that would be to read up on the references or some books. It would be a similar situation if you were reading an astrophysics study in a peer-reviewed journal. There would be terms you'd need to look up and you'd need to build a foundation on the topic before completely understanding the paper.

If the researchers' methods aren't documented then there is no way to reproduce their experiment.

Simply assuming other scientists will know the exact method of the study, without it being documented, is just lousy work.

I was writing about definitions.

 

[Toni]

Firstly, that's just plain not the way that references work. The study which you linked to was also a study like this and they included all their terms. That's how good studies do things. They may be using it in a way that their peers in the field would understand them or they may be using them slightly differently and those differences may or may not be relevant to what's being measured. Without definitions, we don't know.

Secondly, in the OP study, what questions do you feel were the participants asked? Specifically. IIRC, you've indicated in previous threads about polls and the like that you're well aware that the way that a question is worded can influence the answers given to those questions. Not knowing exactly what they were asked could lead to significant skewing of the results.

Thirdly, even if their academic peers in the industry understand the precise definitions of what is meant by the terms like incapacitated, do the participants in the study? There was no indication given that these participants were educated in what the academic definitions of these terms in the questions they were answering were. If readers of the study who aren't the target audience can get confused because they don't have the requisite knowledge, wouldn't the same apply to the participants who are giving them the data for the study? The study you linked to included a list of the key terms used so that everybody was operating off of the same page. That's how proper research is done and is one of the things which separates it from lazy, half-assesd reasearch.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. Still unwilling to talk about the issue. Not a problem I notice you have when someone starts a thread with a study on other issues.

Stop trying to promote your pro-rape agenda by advocating a lack of study about the issue.

You really like telling me what to do.

I can see why you have trouble actually discussing the issues raised by the study. That mad emoticon is telling.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You really like telling me what to do.

I can see why you have trouble actually discussing the issues raised by the study. That mad emoticon is telling.

You're the one promoting poor studying of the issue instead of proper studies. Using some kind of weird-assed attempt at logic which makes no sense to anybody but me, I feel that the most reasonable conclusion from this is that you like the fact that that so many women are getting raped and want to put up as many barriers as possible to anybody doing anything about it. That's a pro-rape agenda on your part. I think it's important to the intellectual integrity of the thread to ignore everything you're saying and point that out so that other members won't make the mistake of reading the words you're using and believing them as opposed to looking between the lines and figuring out your super secret pro-rape agenda that you're trying to sneak in.

That's just me being sensible.

 

[bigfield]

The study is in the context of scores of studies cited, some of which have definitions relevant to questions that have come up in the thread. Each time assertions are made within the study about stuff which are not their findings, they give references. You can look these up. For example, one study cited, gives this definition for IR:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf

Since this study is built upon the work of other such studies, you can tell in what way they are using "incapacitated": too drunk or high to know what she is doing or to control her behavior. That isn't as vague as some people have thought.

Reading through references should be informative but I don't think anyone has done that.

This is information that is useful only to those who are interested in discussing the subject at hand: incapacitated rape at universities.

It's much easier to debate the meaning of 'is.'

The information in the OP is actually completely fucking useless. The only way to move forward in this discussion is to ignore the study in the OP, because it doesn't provide usable information about what happens to college students.

Had Nice Squirrel done a bit more work than posting a link to a Eureka Alert, like actually reading the study instead of posting Derec-bait, we wouldn't be wasting energy trying to make sense of an study that doesn't make itself clear.

And instead of these bullshit well-poisoning and ad hominem arguments, you could lead by example.

Since you have, it seems, read the academic material and familiarised yourself with the sociology of incapacitated rape, you could and provide links to academic work that investigates the causes of incapacitated rape among college attendees, or work that not only identifies the causes but investigates practical solutions that are much more detailed than 'teach boys not to rape'.

It would be a nice change from the third-rate social theory, anecdotal arguments, and ideology that are the standard fare of TFT Political Discussions.