From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: fraternities
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:53:26 GMT

In article <sdusExq00VpKM8=J4f@andrew.cmu.edu> es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg) writes:
>weird@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (john.t.erhardt) writes:
>> But you are X number of times more likely to rape.  I dont know
>
>Do you know me?  Do you know who I am, what I think, and how I view
>life?  I don't think so.  Therefore, I don't think you can say that
>I'm X number of times more likely to rape someone than yourself.

For the same reason we can say that smoking two packs a day makes you
Y number of times more likely to get lung cancer.  Ceteris paribus,
being in a fraternity makes you X number of times more likely to commit
rape.

>> much about statistics but they do seem to quatify those things in life
>> that are easily generalized.  As long as the statistical analysis is done
>> by a reputable firm, professor, or committee, we should have good reason
>> to believe their findings are true.  And since history repeats
>itself,
>
>No, reuptable firms, professors, and committees (a) make mistakes and
>(b) aren't necessarily modeling the true state of things.  I happen to
>know a statistic that says in 1990 Utah spent the highest percent of its
>local income tax on education.  This might imply that Utah spent the
>most on its students, that it had good schools, or all sorts of
>things.  The truth is it did, but because Utah has so many students,
>it ends up spending the LEAST AMOUNT PER STUDENT in the 50 states.
>But the original statistic still sounds like a good supporting
>argument for why you should move to Utah.

Good logic.  You know of one statistic that can be misused, therefore
all statistics are misused.  Talk about overgeneralizing.  

Perhaps you can show why the X-times-likely statistic is invalid, rather
than dismissing it out of hand?  You did such a wonderful job with that
Utah statistic, you should have no problem with this one.

>> We're not generalizing here, we're (at least I am) basing our conclusions
>> on evidence.  This includes the the university of Illinois study which 
>> I heard on a documentary.
>
>Yes, you are.  You're stating that ALL FRATERNITY MEMBERS are more
>likely to commit rape.  The all is the generalizing agent.  What
>you're doing is using a model which may or may not be correct and
>trying to fit it to everything.  The simple truth of the matter is
>that any given fraternity member is not anymore likely to rape someone
>than anyone else.  Reason?  The only thing that anyone has suggested
>to be a cause for a higher probability of rape is a "gang-mentality"
>attitude, you know, the kind usually found in gangs.  Thus, any
>organization that banded together (ie clique) could be considered in
>the same light as a fraternity.  Thus, if you are in a group of close
>friends, by the logic used on fraternities, you have a much higher
>probability of raping someone than some independent schleppy, as you
>are subject to peer-pressure and all that other great stuff.

It isn't a "group of close friends" that acts as the causal factor,
so don't mischaracterize the argument.

Otherwise, everything you say is correct, which is why members of
athletic teams are also more likely to commit rape than the average
male student.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Newsgroups: soc.college