[ SECRET POST #3040 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3040 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.
[Once Upon a Time]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Tree of Savior]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Disturbed's 'Indestructible']


__________________________________________________



04.
[Whitechapel]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[Bill Bailey]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Total War: Warhammer]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Morph]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



11.
[FFXIV, RuPaul's Drag Race]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett]


__________________________________________________



13. [SPOILERS for Nightcrawler, Gone Girl]



__________________________________________________



14. [SPOILERS for Devil Survivor]



__________________________________________________



15. [SPOILERS for Age of Ultron]



__________________________________________________



16. [SPOILERS for Broadchurch]



__________________________________________________



17. [WARNING for incest, abuse, suicide, and probably necrophilia]

[Sankarea]


__________________________________________________



18. [WARNING for abuse]

[Steven Universe]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #434.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That's not how statistics work. It's completely possible for a large group of women in one area to have never been raped, because statistics like that apply to the whole population. You can have areas where lots of women get raped and areas where very few women get raped, but because both groups are part of the same total population, the stats still come out to "1 in 5."

Also, it's a fantasy world. American stats don't apply to it.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a fantasy world where women have to dress as men in order to join the army, because they still don't have many career options beyond wife, seamstress (ha), witch or servant. The country in question has also been in the midst of a war for a long time. The fantasy world statistics would very likely be even worse than "1 in 5".

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt

Well, that's fair.

[blitzwing]

Cool story bro.

(Seriously though, your assumption that people don't know the basic ways in which research is done and statistics collected is kind of hilarious.)

[(Anonymous)]

So you're back to being a patronizing asshole to completely fair and reasonable comments just because they put forth arguments you can't actually refute, huh?

Wow, your attempt at being a decent human being didn't last long, did it?

[blitzwing]

So you're back to being a patronizing asshole to completely fair and reasonable comments just because they put forth arguments you can't actually refute, huh?

Nope. I was just genuinely amused that that anon thought I was SUPER SRS that all demographics in media must perfectly match those in real life and that I needed to be informed how stats work.

Wow, your attempt at being a decent human being didn't last long, did it?

I don't have to attempt to be a decent human being, I am one.

[(Anonymous)]

"I don't have to attempt to be a decent human being, I am one."

Thanks for that! :D I needed a good laugh tonight!

[blitzwing]

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. It wasn't really that bad of a comment. They could have been kinder I suppose but then again this is hardly the most civil thread.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt

That assumption is based on the fact that most people don't know and think "1 in 5 people" literally means "1 in 5 people." Shit, the way they try to scare you off drugs in school is by saying, "1 in 3 people wind up doing X! That means 10 of you will wind up doing it!" And most of the conversations we've had here about rape and assault involve a few people going, "I don't believe the stats because I don't know anyone who's been assaulted. If it really is 1 in 5 people, I should know at least X number who have."

And if you don't want someone to think that you're literally applying "1 in 5 people" to a situation, you probably shouldn't say things like, "so statistically, 3 of the characters you mention should have a rape/sexual assault in their background." But the reality is that as much as you love correcting other people, your ego is too fragile to take being corrected yourself.

[(Anonymous)]

I would argue that it's wrong to say we should expect 3 of 15 characters to have a rape in their background, but we shouldn't be surprised by it either. Blitzwing was certainly wrong insofar as they implied that we would expect it, but at the same time, they were right in the broader point - it's hardly unrealistic, and what we know about rape statistics makes it stranger to treat it as a really serious objection.,

[blitzwing]

That assumption is based on the fact that most people don't know and think "1 in 5 people" literally means "1 in 5 people."

Who's most people? They teach probability in grade school. Even if your chance of getting a heads on a coin flip is 50%, you can flip 10 coins in a row and have then all be tails. Or all heads. The probability of that is just low.

Likewise, you can survey 5 random women and none of them will be rape/assault/csa survivors. Or you can survey 5 and have all of them be survivors. Or you can survey 15 and have all of them be. Doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to look at statistics and demographics when writing, or analyzing writing.

And if you don't want someone to think that you're literally applying "1 in 5 people" to a situation, you probably shouldn't say things like, "so statistically, 3 of the characters you mention should have a rape/sexual assault in their background."

Or they could not jump to the conclusion that someone lacks basic math skills because they mention using real-life demographics and statistics as a reference point for fictional demographics.

But the reality is that as much as you love correcting other people, your ego is too fragile to take being corrected yourself.

Pffft. If only you knew the truth.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to look at statistics and demographics when writing, or analyzing writing.

That depends on the context of the writing you're analying. You can argue real world stats for a real world setting, but that's about the limit of it.

And you know what they say, "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics." That's why 'most people' actually do think the 1-in-whatever stat really does mean 1-in-whatever without taking the context into account at all.

[blitzwing]

You can argue real world stats for a real world setting, but that's about the limit of it.

I don't think that's the limit of it. For instance, if rape rates are significantly higher for people serving the military--that's a trend that would be perfectly plausible to incorporate into a fantasy setting, unless the fantasy society or military structure is so drastically different that there's a plausible reason why it would differ.

That's why 'most people' actually do think the 1-in-whatever stat really does mean 1-in-whatever without taking the context into account at all.

'Most people' is not that relevant when talking about fandom spaces, which are disproportionately more educated than the general population. A lot of the information that allows one to truly understand research methods and statistics is picked up in college.

[(Anonymous)]

Just because someone's gone to college, it doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to the way statistics can skew perceptions based on how they're presented.

And FWIW, I have two degrees and neither of them taught the first thing about statistics. I chose to self-study myself later, but not everyone is going to bother.

[blitzwing]

Just because someone's gone to college, it doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to the way statistics can skew perceptions based on how they're presented.


Of course not. You can see where I talk about that phenomenon here. I do think having actual knowledge of research and statistics methods does help in being able to understand and critique statistical data one is presented with, even if it doesn't make you immune to bias or framing. You might at least be able to say "hmm this looks fishy. I want to see the methodology before I believe this" whereas someone with no education in research methods would have less of a chance of spotting methodological flaws because they have no training in watching for them.

And FWIW, I have two degrees and neither of them taught the first thing about statistics. I chose to self-study myself later, but not everyone is going to bother.

Generally, the social sciences, the humanities, and STEM fields are ones in which people will have picked up information about research and stats. Not everyone has a degree in one of those areas, but those make up a lot of the college graduates.

Mind sharing what you have your degrees in?

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt

Where are you that you're surrounded by people who actually understand probability and were taught about it in grade school?

"Or they could not jump to the conclusion that someone lacks basic math skills because they mention using real-life demographics and statistics as a reference point for fictional demographics."

Except the assumption didn't come from that. It came from you stating that 3 out of the 14 female characters should be rape victims, which is a literal reading of "1 in 5." There is no "should" about it, and it's not under-representation or statistically invalid to have only one of them be a victim.

"Pffft. If only you knew the truth."

Oh, give me a break. You're one of the most arrogant, needlessly antagonistic people here. You've admitted in the past to having a problem keeping your ego in check and not being a douche.

[(Anonymous)]

Blitzy really hasn't been that bad in this thread.

The worst you can say is a bit brusque.

[blitzwing]

Where are you that you're surrounded by people who actually understand probability and were taught about it in grade school?

Admittedly I'm in an area that has a higher than average level of educational attainment. Still, even the worst schools have probably taught probability before a student reaches high school. It's not like basic probability is a difficult concept.

Except the assumption didn't come from that. It came from you stating that 3 out of the 14 female characters should be rape victims, which is a literal reading of "1 in 5." There is no "should" about it, and it's not under-representation or statistically invalid to have only one of them be a victim.

No, it's not statistically invalid, but it is an under-representation versus the average.


Oh, give me a break. You're one of the most arrogant, needlessly antagonistic people here. You've admitted in the past to having a problem keeping your ego in check and not being a douche.

But you're wrong about "your ego is too fragile to take being corrected yourself." I love being caught out as wrong and corrected (or even better, viciously called out, like the SJWs do). I love being insulted and mocked. It works as a positive reinforcement for me and actually makes it harder to break bad behavior.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt

So you're some sort of...argument masochist?

[blitzwing]

So you're some sort of...argument masochist?

Yeah, I don't know if there's a better term for it. I think it might be why I slip into douchebaggery so easily; I subconsiously crave being put down.

[(Anonymous)]

So, you know how statistics can be framed in different ways, and depending on how you frame them, people come to different conclusions? Most people are pretty easily fooled by the way a statistic is presented to them. Like, if you say, "14% of accidents are caused by teen drivers," people react differently than if you say, "%86 of accidents are caused by adult drivers." People who see or hear it the first way tend to think teen drivers are a much greater danger on the road than people who see or hear it in the second way, even though it's the exact same figure. In the same way, people react differently when you tell them "1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime" than when you tell them "12% of women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime." People who hear it the first way tend to think their risk is greater than people who hear it the second way. That shouldn't happen if most people understand statistics.

[blitzwing]

I don't think that's a matter of them not understanding. It's more a flaw of the human brain. We know that a $4.99 box of cereal is really closer to $5, and with sales tax will be $5.07. But we still might think of it as "4 dollars" and even round it to that when someone asks how much the box is, because of the left-digit anchoring effect. It doesn't mean a person doesn't, or can't, understand what's going on or what the pricing really means.

Understanding doesn't always trump psychology.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm going to have to agree with blitzwing on this one. I understand statistics, but that doesn't mean I will process those statements the same way and part of that is due to the language - 1 in 8 (I think: I know 8 women, I could be the 1 or someone I know could be the 1) and for %12 (I think of a really large group women and a relatively small group from that large group) even knowing intellectually that statistics don't work that way (though it's not impossible). The 14% and the 86% statements have a lot of other different numbers behind them, like the 4 to 6 years (in the US) someone is a teen driver and the amount of driving adults do (both distance and length of time), so the "teen" part of the statement is pretty meaningful.