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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

So what are you arguing you think that these women are thinking when they take this survey?

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

So why don't you do as I suggest and find some actual women and see if any of them think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object" means anything as weak and flimsy as you keep suggesting.

I'm sorry, but what is it you think I've suggested? I said I don't know how they've interpreted it, not that they've interpreted it as 'one glass of wine an hour' (which would allow an average weight woman to drive home).

You either think people are interpreting is too broadly or too narrowly. You can't get much more narrow than passed out, delirious, or paralyzed, as I interpret it, so you must think they are interpreting it too broadly.

You keep insisting the words are undefined. I think that the phrasing of the question is so clear that about 95% of people who have a fluent understanding of English who read the question will all agree with each other as to what it means. I think that if we exclude the people who didn't get into college that number is likely more than 99%. Language is malleable and open to interpretation but carefully chosen words organized with care can still effectively convey meaning to broad audiences.

I agree.

 

[ZiprHead]

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

What does it mean to you and why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What does it mean to you and why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

Well, if you don't know what question was asked, you don't know how the participants would interpret the question. It's wrong to assume that they'd have a different interpretation than others, but it's equally wrong to assume they'd have a similar interpretation to others. There's not enough information to form a conclusion about it.

 

[ZiprHead]

What does it mean to you and why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

Well, if you don't know what question was asked, you don't know how the participants would interpret the question. It's wrong to assume that they'd have a different interpretation than others, but it's equally wrong to assume they'd have a similar interpretation to others. There's not enough information to form a conclusion about it.

But we do know what question was asked. It's not rocket science, it's simple English asked to college educated women. Again, why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if you don't know what question was asked, you don't know how the participants would interpret the question. It's wrong to assume that they'd have a different interpretation than others, but it's equally wrong to assume they'd have a similar interpretation to others. There's not enough information to form a conclusion about it.

But we do know what question was asked. It's not rocket science, it's simple English asked to college educated women. Again, why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

OK, what was the question?

 

[ZiprHead]

But we do know what question was asked. It's not rocket science, it's simple English asked to college educated women. Again, why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

OK, what was the question?

It was just restated again in Zorg's post, #334.

Quote Originally Posted by THE STUDY

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What does it mean to you and why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

Well, if you don't know what question was asked, you don't know how the participants would interpret the question. It's wrong to assume that they'd have a different interpretation than others, but it's equally wrong to assume they'd have a similar interpretation to others. There's not enough information to form a conclusion about it.

It isn't wrong to assume that they would have a similar interpretation to others. That's generally how language works but it's especially true when the language has been vetted.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

What does it mean to you and why do you assume others would have a vastly different interpretation?

I've already said before that incapacitated seems to me a very, very strong word. On first blush, I'd equate it with catatonic.

But that makes the wording curious. Anyone who was incapacitated wouldn't need the qualifier 'and unable to object or consent'. Is there a level of 'incapacitation' where you could object or consent?

But the question wording aside, even if every single respondent interpreted it exactly as intended, nobody has discussed the convenience sample used, which is a far greater barrier to generalising the survey results to the population.

 

[ronburgundy]

How many times does it need to be explained that the researchers collected zero data relevant to any of the theoretical definitions they provide. Their operational definition is all that matters for the scientific validity of any interpretation or conclusions. The operational definition is nothing but the question the women were asked, and that question provides no basis to infer that these women viewed themselves as "too drunk or high to know what she was doing or control her behavior." The women were never informed of this definition, and it is theoretically implausible to assume that all women would have that interpretation of the word.

It's what incapacitated means in common usage* but please tell us the exact questions reviewed by the college's Internal Review Board that you have a problem with.

Huh? The IRB does nothing to improve the intellectual merits of research or the empirical reliability and validity of measurements? Just as often, they harm the scientific merits of research. The IRB is concerned with preventing harm to the participants, which has no correlation with what methods produce the most valid data.

What the dictionary says is also largely irrelevant. Citing the dictionary definition for a word as evidence that all respondents understood it as intended would get you laughed out of any respectable research journal. Doing so supports your interpretation, only if you presume against a mountain of evidence that all college freshmen would give you the exact dictionary definition of every word. As every standardized college admission tests shows, a huge % of student would not, and their is huge variance in the kind of alternate definitions they hold.
Not to mention, the dictionary give word meanings devoid of context and devoid of the massive network of associations in the human brain triggered by words and those contexts, which alter their interpretation. Just one example, is the context of alcohol consumption and its relation to actions like diving, where a BAC of .04 can mean you no longer have the capacity to drive safely. At the very most, the dictionary definition represents nothing more than the most typical meaning, averaging across all contexts and people in which its perceived meaning varies greatly.

Your logical is equal to claiming that because the average height of humans is 5' 4", you can assume all people are 5' 4" and ignore the fact that a huge % (even a vast majority) are not 5' 4". That's right, "average" or "most typical" can be something that is actually true of a minority of people, it is just more common than any other single value or in this case single interpretation.

 

[ronburgundy]

If you are going to correct people it helps if you actually know what you are talking about.
What the study SAID was :

... perform sexual acts while you were incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to object or consent.

The study said incapacitated "AND" unable to "consent or object."

And we get right back to what 'incapacitated' to the point of being 'unable to consent' means.

No apology for misrepsenting the study?

I see you keep on breaking up the clause "unable to consent or object"

You know it doesn't read "unable to consent or unable to object" It reads "unable to consent or object." There is a difference and you know it. Which is exactly why you don't want to use the full clause.

I dare you to find 10 college aged females out on the internet and ask them if they think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object." is exactly the same as "tipsy" to ANY of them.

I did not say that it was 'exactly the same' as 'tipsy'.

So what are you arguing you think that these women are thinking when they take this survey?

I said I do not know the threshold that other people hold for such an assessment. I know what it means for me.

So why don't you do as I suggest and find some actual women and see if any of them think "incapacitated and unable to consent or object" means anything as weak and flimsy as you keep suggesting.

I'm sorry, but what is it you think I've suggested? I said I don't know how they've interpreted it, not that they've interpreted it as 'one glass of wine an hour' (which would allow an average weight woman to drive home).

You either think people are interpreting is too broadly or too narrowly. You can't get much more narrow than passed out, delirious, or paralyzed, as I interpret it, so you must think they are interpreting it too broadly.

You keep insisting the words are undefined. I think that the phrasing of the question is so clear that about 95% of people who have a fluent understanding of English who read the question will all agree with each other as to what it means. I think that if we exclude the people who didn't get into college that number is likely more than 99%.

Research on survey wording suggest that you are wrong. And research on the language competence of college freshman shows you are very wrong.

BTW, it is a truly absurd notion to presume that all respondents read a survey question carefully and deliberate on a word meaning. Thus, even if on an exam no one would get it wrong (and absurd premise), on a survey many more will get it wrong because they are not deliberating about the nuanced difference between your definition and other less extreme states.

As you rightly point out, the definition being assumed is as about as extreme a mental state as it gets. Thus, all deviations for the assumed definition constitute false positives where the person's is including states that fall short of the presumed extreme state. IF even a small minority (like 10%) of the sample fail to interpret it as you assume for any reason, that means that reported 15% is mostly false positives.
It would take very little variation in interpretation resulting from less than perfect attention to detail by the respondents to produce sizable over-estimates in the concluded "rape" frequency.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's what incapacitated means in common usage* but please tell us the exact questions reviewed by the college's Internal Review Board that you have a problem with.

Huh? The IRB does nothing to improve the intellectual merits of research or the empirical reliability and validity of measurements? Just as often, they harm the scientific merits of research. The IRB is concerned with preventing harm to the participants, which has no correlation with what methods produce the most valid data.

Got some evidence of that?

What the dictionary says is also largely irrelevant. Citing the dictionary definition for a word as evidence that all respondents understood it as intended would get you laughed out of any respectable research journal. Doing so supports your interpretation, only if you presume against a mountain of evidence that all college freshmen would give you the exact dictionary definition of every word. As every standardized college admission tests shows, a huge % of student would not, and their is huge variance in the kind of alternate definitions they hold.
Not to mention, the dictionary give word meanings devoid of context and devoid of the massive network of associations in the human brain triggered by words and those contexts, which alter their interpretation. Just one example, is the context of alcohol consumption and its relation to actions like diving, where a BAC of .04 can mean you no longer have the capacity to drive safely. At the very most, the dictionary definition represents nothing more than the most typical meaning, averaging across all contexts and people in which its perceived meaning varies greatly.

The dictionary is not irrelevant, your post is.

Your logical is equal to claiming that because the average height of humans is 5' 4", you can assume all people are 5' 4" and ignore the fact that a huge % (even a vast majority) are not 5' 4". That's right, "average" or "most typical" can be something that is actually true of a minority of people, it is just more common than any other single value or in this case single interpretation.

No it isn't. A definition of 'incapacitated' and added qualifier make the issue in this discussion absolutely nothing like the variation in heights of people.

 

[J842P]

Got some evidence of that?

The entire purpose of an IRB is to make sure that research methods involving humans are ethically acceptable, not that they are experimentally sound. Frequently, the best way to obtain the most valid results isn't the most ethical.

Anyway, I'm having a hard time following this thread because it's devolving into many sub-debates over semantics. Do we have any methods from the study cited in the OP as to the exact questions asked? It seems that the study cited had pretty reasonable survey methods, but that isn't my area of expertise at all and it's notoriously difficult to design good survey questions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Got some evidence of that?

The entire purpose of an IRB is to make sure that research methods involving humans are ethically acceptable, not that they are experimentally sound. Frequently, the best way to obtain the most valid results isn't the most ethical.

Okay.

Anyway, I'm having a hard time following this thread because it's devolving into many sub-debates over semantics. Do we have any methods from the study cited in the OP as to the exact questions asked? It seems that the study cited had pretty reasonable survey methods, but that isn't my area of expertise at all and it's notoriously difficult to design good survey questions.

The thread should be difficult to follow. There is too much nitpicking over definitions of words when there is no ambiguity.

 

[J842P]

Right, but the core of the issue is what the survey questions in the study cited in the OP actually were, if we are going to be able to have a rational discussion regarding the study, that is a necessary starting point.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Right, but the core of the issue is what the survey questions in the study cited in the OP actually were, if we are going to be able to have a rational discussion regarding the study, that is a necessary starting point.

I agree. So why all the semantic quibbling (needless semantic quibbling I might add) over words in the study such as "incapacitated?"