Sup my bro. Hope life is well. uNL and the brew was a legit great time period

You're kind of goalpost shifting here. I think you're alluding to is the concept of positive and negative predictive value. It is probably encountered most in epidemiology and things like that. Plenty of examples abound.

So your position is essentially that early reporting has a high positive predictive value but a low negative predictive value. I'd agree with that.

That in no way changes the fact that if someone reports early they have just a bit more credibility than someone who doesn't.

The concepts of predictive value and absolute probability are different. Conflating them is actually a pretty common error. Biostatistics tests often have a bunch of 'trick' questions on this exact distinction that trip people up.

It is not a probability question. It's real life. Women who immediately report it are not "more credible" than women who don't. They are a self-selecting data set with a whole litany of factors that decrease the ability that they can be fabricating it. But even if we pretend this is some math question, and they get taken out of some deck of cards leaving a higher percentage of women who are likely to lie behind like more aces in a deck-what you are left with is a gigantic number of actual rape victims and a tiny number of false allegations. It is for all practical purposes unchanged.

And for the record I did not say that early reporters have more credibility, I said that it reduces the likelihood that they are lying. That may seem semantic, but it's not, and it's an important distinction. It is factors outside of their personal credibility that make that so.

Just so we're clear, your position is that early reporters are have a lower likelihood of lying [than later reporters].

But at the same time, later reporters do not have a higher likelihood of lying [than earlier reporters].

Both groups have a very low likelihood of lying.

Would that be an accurate statement of your position?

Here you go.

Just saw Spider Man Far From Home, where Zendaya plays the Spiderman love interest. And in a couple hours I am going to be watching her in Euphoria, which is a very different type of show. Quite a range for a couple hour period.

I also know she is the love interest of the main protagonist in the Dune movie being made, which is probably my favorite book of all time, so I am enthused. That isn't really relevant to anything, but I thought I would share it anyways, because I care.

Isn't that the point?

I wholeheartedly love the David Lynch "Dune" movie. I also would have loved to see the Jodorwosky version. If you haven't seen "Jodorworsky's Dune" I highly recommend it. I did not like the SciFi channel remake in the early 2000s.

I also liked the book a lot, and I liked some of the later books, although they got increasingly weird and abstract. Frank Herbert also wrote some other pretty weird books, like the WorShip series.

Having this conversation is a bit difficult because "statistically significant" has a precise, formal definition, and your usage here doesn't really apply.

Setting that aside, there is no need to be vague here. Let's try and be as clear as posssible.

1. In the first edited sentence you say "Just so we're clear, your position is that early reporters have a statistically significant lower ability to credibly lie."

lower than what? lower than whom?

2. In the second edited sentence you say "But at the same time, later reporters do not have a statistically significant higher likelihood of lying."

once again, higher than what? higher than whom?


Its weird that you would remove attempts to make that clear without adding your own.

JFC, dude. It's not like we both don't get exactly what the other one is saying. Here you go tho. It makes zero difference to my edits.

Just so we're clear, your position is that early reporters have a significantly lower ability to credibly lie [than later reporters].

But at the same time, later reporters do not have a significantly higher likelihood of lying. [than earlier reporters].

Both groups have a very low likelihood of lying.

And let me add, for clarity, bringing up the (non) factor in suggesting the likelihood a criminal, false allegation (without even due process for the accused bro!!!!1!) is either a really dim way to make an assessment or a really ****ty way to impugn the credibility of victims. That is also my view.

JT,

Almost there. So, if we can assume that lower ability to credibly lie means a lower likelihood of lying. Would you also agree with the following:

No.

I really am confused. Let's try this.

If early reporter has a "lower ability to credibly lie" than later reporter, which of the following is true:

A. early reporter has lower likelihood of lying than later reporter
B. early reporter has equal likelihood of lying than later reporter
C. early reporter has higher likelihood of lying than later reporter
D. lower ability to credibly lie has no correlation to likelihood of lying


Let's also keep in mind that you said this:

Melk,


I'm afraid you're going to have to give this up. JT is obviously a firm believer in doublethink.

You would not expect him to to ride in on his high horse, get on his soapbox and preached to the unwashed heathens without a little doublespeak, would you?

Like I think that jjou88 and Didace have next to no credibility. If they told me they didn’t eat the **** out of a litter box in a room they were sitting in, I wouldn’t trust them and would assume they did. Now if they had to manipulate a simple bolt to get to the litter box, I would think that is more likely true because they are way too stupid to do that. But it doesn’t increase their credibility or decrease their propensity to lie, just decreases their ability to eat the ****. This time.

Get it?

I like the imagery, but is that A, B, C or D?

You have to understand that for ideologues words and reason only matter insomuch as it supports ideological conviction. If reason is inconsistent with ideology, it is to be completely discarded. Also note, that in his last post instead of attacking the argument, he immediately went after the argumenters. Again, standard SOP. You discredit the argumenter, and that way you don't ever have to acknowledge the argument at all.

This is textbook ideological possession.

jjjou,

I'm inclined to give contributing regulars of this sub-forum some space to explore, especially recognizing that we have, collectively, a rather large (and at times somewhat hidden) range of life experiences, values, priorities, and interests to bring to the table. To say I don't include you in the above category would be an understatement; I'll leave it as an exercise in deduction as to how light my trigger finger will be for continued non-substantive posts from your general direction. I'm sure Melk will be willing to guide you upon a path of self discovery if you're still a bit fuzzy.

The ****ing irony of this post and the fact that you are calling the tweedle dee and tweedle dumb posts I was addressing “arguments” I am avoiding. I recommend you go and look up jj’s body of work on Weinstein before you jump right in bed with him. Figuratively and probably a good idea for anyone literally too.

You, jj, and didace are not even part of this argument. You stopped addressing me way back when your snowflake feelings got hurt yesterday but hop back in for a Yeah! Yeah! Get him! Like the little side pathetic side kick. So cute.

I’d sooner argue with a broken crayon then imagine a substantive discussion with those two. You still are a very slight level up from them in my view, and that’s because someone else vouches for you.

As for melk, my dude. I’ll explain it to you again tomorrow.

No you're fine. If anything, I've probably said the most bombastic thing so far and my views align with Johnny's.


Brew crew! Now that we all have jobs (except DJ), we should do something...

JT,

Just pick a letter. Of course you're free to add any explanation that you think would help. I definitely don't want to misrepresent your stance.

It would be good to have some actual #s because I actually suspect both groups ("early" and "later" reporters) are quite low overall. And pretty sure everyone else here thinks this too.

It could be something like early lie 1% of the time and late lie 1.5% but the MGTOW headline could read "later reporters of rape are 50% more likely to be lying" OK while that would be true (with my made up #s), doesn't actually matter at all.

Then on top of this there are a whole pile of rapes, another 100%? that go unreported so the true false reporting divided by actual rapes is further cut in half.

But I'd have to believe when a celebs involved it raises the probability of lying. Celebs might also have a higher propensity to rape. There's obviously factors that increase the likelihood of lying. In this case, as Evo elaborated on, there's several factors that could potentially raise the likelihood but don't fit the bill.


It's like I had a discussion with my gf, she's freaking out about getting older and not having kids yet. She's like it's way more likely to have a child with problems (i.e down syndrome) at an older age. While she's right, we looked at the #s and it jumped from like 1/1000 to 3/1000 at young vs 35. K, doesn't change any plans.

edit: quick googling said 2% overall

When Melkerson starts nitting things up, my participation level in any argument is going to drop precipitously. But you have fun talking with him tomorrow.



Edit: Not to say he doesn't seem to be right in this instance with the seeming inconsistency with your argument. But you also argued people who believe in due process are probably rapists, and when asked how probable this was, you replied as probable that the women were lying (which seems to be a very tiny number), so your argument not being consistent seems to be a feature, not a bug.

According to Sandra Newman, every academic study on the issue finds that the most common type of fake accuser is actually a teenage girl trying to get out of trouble.

Often it's her parents who report the "rape" attempt. The studies suggest the false accusation can often stem from something as absurd as finding an excuse for missing curfew.

According to a 2017 report by the US National Institutes of Health, fake accusers "were primarily motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other behaviour such as adultery or skipping school."

In many cases the fake accuser has a history of lying to authorities or committing fraud. She may well have a criminal record.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684