Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Day in Correlation/Causation Fallacies, Part 1

1

Mr. Landsburg is clearly an educated person, but somehow missed the unit on Logical Fallacies. This is just lame.

If it's going to be argued on a purely statistical basis - it's no secret that violent crime dropped dramatically from 1979 to 2004, therefore; less cases of rape have also been reported (as most rapist are likely repeat offenders).

Posted by Dougsf | November 1, 2006 3:43 PM
2

I know that jacking off as frequently as is possible with internet porn makes me sleep better, and be much calmer, less likely to react angrily to things going wrong, and generally saner and happier than when porn isn't readily available. So I would totally believe that the rise of Internet porn has caused an overall decrease in violent tendencies. But I agree, a conclusion that specific is a false assumption of causality.

Posted by Noink | November 1, 2006 3:45 PM
3

Didn't the study track the decline relative to areas in the US that adopted the internet at different rates while controlling for things like income, Republicans and Starbucks? The study will be peer reviewed, but if a strong correlation is shown, a causal relationship warrants consideration.

Posted by fromohio | November 1, 2006 4:04 PM
4

No, it controlled for other factors among the population (poverty, alcoholism, etc.), but not for other trends that were happening across the country at the time.

Posted by ECB | November 1, 2006 4:16 PM
5

OR ... they could just be getting older. As our society is. If you look at offenders, you see a spike at certain age ranges.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 1, 2006 4:29 PM
6

I haven't read the actual study, but the article did say that the correlations matched based on the different adoption rates that varied throughout the country. If you could find another trend that had a similarly strong correlation in those areas, that would warrant consideration, but he did cover the obvious ones and the question of porn reducing rape is not a stupid one to throw out to peer review.

Posted by fromohio | November 1, 2006 4:30 PM
7

Did Kendall even bother calculating his statistics while looking at changes in gender issues and attitudes? It seems like rapists are much more maligned now than even just 30 years ago, and police and DAs are better trained, and more interested, in handling sexual violence cases.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 1, 2006 4:36 PM
8

Perhapses the internet has made women and the occasional man more 'rape savvy" and hence better able to avoid and or stop a rape.

That would actually be an interesting study. You could see if knowledge of rape aversion techniques actually correlates with less rape. You could further test whether it enables escape form rape, and more specifically what works best.

Posted by Giffy | November 1, 2006 6:50 PM
9

"However, I’m firmly in the camp that believes rape, in general, is about violence and humiliating women as much as it is about “getting” sex."

How is it that strident feminist women know so much about male psychology?

There are lots of ways that a regular dose of porn might improve a man's mental health around sexuality, and thereby decrease his inclination to rape.

Posted by Sean | November 1, 2006 7:00 PM
10

Sean, what an inflammatory thing to say. This "strident feminist" knows about male psychology because I've had to navigate around it since I was born, studied it in school and - unlike many other people - spent some time actually talking with rapists and child molesters. Not a one of them ever told me that porn, internet or otherwise, would have a positive effect on rates of rape/molestation. They all thought it was a baaaad idea, leading to even better techniques to...rape and molest!

That was my next question. Did the researcher talk with men who had committed (and admitted to) said crimes? A bit of qualitative data could go a long way towards illuminating this odd quantitative data.

Posted by jtroop | November 1, 2006 9:07 PM
11

I should add that I HATE porn that depicts violence, humiliation, or any other kind of degrading behavior, or really anything other than hott people enjoying each other. It's a total turn-off. I hypothesize that it only exists because the taboo against sex is so strong that some (or, many) people get sex mentally conflated with things that actually are awful.

Posted by Noink | November 1, 2006 9:33 PM
12

JTROOP
I don't think the study is saying that severally damaged people will be positively affected. Not all rapists are the same and it would be irrational to dismiss any type of illumination on the subject. This study is being dismissed because it has the nerve to suggest that some rapes may in fact be about sex (as opposed to control)

PS Slightly off topic, but I live in Portland, and am filling out my ballot. My Democratic House Rep option is David Wu who admits that he tried to force his girlfriend to have sex with him against her will (also known as rape). I was going to vote for him, but I would be happy to change the vote if it's too offensive.

Posted by fromohio | November 1, 2006 9:42 PM
13

Noink: I think it's a bit more complex than that. I think rape is primarily a result of the tension caused by the difference in male and female biological viewpoints regarding sex: at the bottom level, males want to fuck pretty much anything that moves (maximum dispersion of genetic heritage), while females want good genetic traits, support and stability.

In other words, men want what women have (i.e. women), but women largely control when we get some. This gives women a great deal of power over us, and some (many?) men respond to this by exerting power over women in as many other ways as possible. One of those ways is use of force.

This is the only explanation I've come up with for the preponderance of entrenched misogyny throughout history and across cultures (think rape, female genital mutiliation, foot binding, women's suffrage, disparity in pay rates, far higher rates of domestic violence against women and molestation of girls, high heels, ...).

Of course, I'm talking about low-level, sub-conscious drives and broad behaviours here; there are always exceptions, etc etc. Thankfully, humans have higher cognitive faculties to work with, and some men even manage to engage those faculties.

Posted by Monkey | November 1, 2006 10:23 PM
14

jtroop: "This "strident feminist" knows about male psychology because I've had to navigate around it since I was born..."

Let me put it this way - how would you feel if some conservative male with an axe to grind and no particular expertise started lecturing you on how women act and think?

I've found that experienced feminists like Veronica Monet and Mistresse Matisse, and gay men like Dan Savage have much better insight into male sexuality than the judgmental, sex-negative, chip-on-the-shoulder school of feminism recited by Erica in this blog.

P.S. I'll buy that your experience interviewing men gives you some authority on the subject, but "navigating around" male psychology does not.

Posted by Sean | November 1, 2006 11:35 PM
15

Interesting - thanks, Monkey. Relatedly, I'm curious, do you have any thoughts about the appeal of BDSM (something else I've never quite understood, although I have nothing against any kind of consensual play)? Many people have various wacky things that turn them on, but the fact that for so many it's domination and violence, which seem inherently repulsive, has always surprised me. Actually... Matisse? Are you following this thread? I'm sure you've gotten this one before...

Posted by Noink | November 2, 2006 12:25 AM
16

Talk about a beautiful example of the logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc:

"a causal relationship has erroneously been assumed from a merely sequential one."

Posted by lilabull | November 2, 2006 1:00 AM
17

I should add that I *completely* support the propagation of porn. But (adult) porn doesn't need dumb logic or any rationale to exist, except that people want and desperately need it.

In a healthy society, Toys in Babeland would be unnecessary ... except for those whose physical disabilities or organic mental health precluded the frequent contact all the other animals, unaffected by Church Ladies, enjoy.

Posted by lilabull | November 2, 2006 1:06 AM
18

"In a healthy society, Toys in Babeland would be unnecessary."

Huh? Humans have been using sex toys since they've been using tools. Toys in Babeland would thrive in a "healthy society", just as its thriving now.

Posted by Sean | November 2, 2006 4:58 AM
19

Sean,

What sex toys did cavemen use? I am really curious.

Posted by Jude Fawley | November 2, 2006 8:39 AM
20

If more porn REALLY decreased rape, then I'd be all for taxing ourselves to mail it to every pornless man in the country. (We'd probably want to mail it on VHS rather than provide it on DVD, as Kendall points out that computer ownership correlates with a higher incidence of rape.)


Like Erica, I have been lead to believe that men rape out of a pathological and criminal tendency to dominate and control women (women who have not given their consent to be dominated and controlled); and that although it is called a "sex crime" it has very little to do with sex.


Therefore, I would find any assertion that potential or actual rapists can be prevented or cured if only they get more sex at home either with themselves or another person, with or without porn, to be misguided.


That said, I would think it would be impossible to have any sort of a productive discussion about purposefully reducing the incidence of rape without asking, "Why do men rape?" (Also, "Why do women rape?", as they occasionally do.)


In addition, it seems essential to me to look to see if there are any fundamental differences between rapists and a non-rapists in the areas of upbringing, problem solving, family support, education, brain chemistry, self-esteem, attitudes towards women, attitudes about men/manliness, abuse history in their own family, alcoholism/drug abuse, dealing with frustration, dealing with rejection, perceived criticism, sexual history, or any other factor that can be thought of.


As has been reported in these pages, the field of curing rapists is not wholly successful. Therefore, preventing rape should go far beyond telling women to not leave drinks unattended, to lock their doors, and to fear strangers. Rape prevention should start with preventing men from ever becoming rapists, with identifying the risk factors for becoming a rapist. Is that even possible?

Posted by Diana | November 2, 2006 9:25 AM
21

Sean:

Strident anti-feminists always miss the same point, which is that women already know how it feels to have "some conservative male with an axe to grind and no particular expertise" lecturing us on how we act and think. It's called "you."

Apparently, any feminist is "sex-negative" unless she's wearing a vinyl catsuit in the back of a free news weekly (all due respect to Matisse). Sorry Sean, but women have no obligation to season our feminism with sexiness, though I'm sure that makes it easier for you to stomach.

Posted by Please. | November 2, 2006 9:25 AM
22

Noink: Sex and power are very much intertwined. All sexual acts involve some level of submission and dominance. I don't mean that in a negative sense, either: even in "vanilla" heterosexual sex, the woman allows the man to penetrate, which is a form of submission.

So almost all fantasies generally revolve around power, and quite often there doesn't even need to be much (or even any) sex involved -- hence BDSM. And because humans are contrary creatures, our fantasies don't necessarily place us in a position of power, but can in fact put us in the submissive. I understand there's a reasonable correlation between a person's external level of power in the world and the desire to be submissive in fantasy (like an important CEO being a BDSM bottom). I'm sure Matisse could confirm or refute that...

As a side comment, I find it interesting that women typically control male access to sex, but when sex actually happens, the male tends to take charge. And before everyone starts flaming me, I know this is not absolute; plenty of women will drive in the bedroom, and plenty of men will be happy if/when they do. Obviously, experience -- and the confidence engendered by that -- will make a great deal of difference. However, I have found that less experienced women will generally be less assertive, but less experienced men are all too happy to take charge.

Posted by Monkey | November 2, 2006 5:14 PM
23

Diana: unfortunately, if my theory is right, there's not much we can do to completely prevent rape. It seems to me that rape is caused by a pretty fundamental facet of the human condition, and that's not likely to change soon. Also, good people can do extraordinarily bad things given the right context. There are men who would never rape normally, but have done so in war.

That doesn't mean there aren't risk factors that could be identified and dealt with (education, social attitudes, etc.). Brain chemistry may be an interesting area of research...

Posted by Monkey | November 2, 2006 5:30 PM
24

23: Nature vs. Nurture is a well worn argument, but raising its specter does not absolve a society of the responsibility to do everything it can to prevent rape and violence targeting women, which is so normalized in the US it is not even considered a hate crime by the FBI.


It could be useful to compare the incidence of rape in different countries and in different eras. If it is identical in every country over time, biologically induced and completely apart from all social factors, with rapists impervious to all treatment attempts, I would be the first to advocate one strike mandatory minimums for rapists. That said, I don't think that the US is taking seriously its responsibility to prevent prison rape, a whole other sickening and unconscionable tragedy. If preventing prison rape were as simple as giving prisoners porn it would certainly bring a whole new meaning to the Books To Prisoners project.

Posted by Diana | November 3, 2006 9:07 AM
25

A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say...

Posted by Mason Harter | November 17, 2006 12:31 AM
26

Twistys Presents: Peach

Posted by peach | November 21, 2006 5:48 AM
27

Twistys Presents: Jana Cova

Posted by jana cova | November 21, 2006 11:31 PM
28

Twistys Presents: Erica Campbell

Posted by erica campbell | November 22, 2006 3:50 AM
29

TV host Oprah Winfrey gives audience members $1,000 (526) each to donate to a charitable cause...

Posted by Brycen Fabian | November 22, 2006 6:30 PM
30

Twistys Presents: Aria Giovanni

Posted by aria giovanni | November 22, 2006 9:02 PM
31

Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Posted by Solomon Oswald | November 23, 2006 12:53 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).