While many of these claims are “old news” to those communities, many of these claims are fresh. The baseline rate reasoning is flawed because a) sexual assault remains the most underreported crime, so there is likely instead an iceberg effect, and b) women who were harassed/assaulted have left the movement which changes your distribution, and c) women who would enter your movement otherwise now stay away due to whisper networks and bad vibes.
While many of these claims are “old news” to those communities, many of these claims are fresh.
Can you clarify which specific claims are new? A claim which hasn’t been previously reported in a mainstream news article might still be known to people who have been following community meta-drama.
The baseline rate reasoning is flawed because a) sexual assault remains the most underreported crime, so there is likely instead an iceberg effect,
I’m not sure how this refutes the base rate argument. The iceberg effect exists for both the rationalist community and for every other community you might compare it to (including the ones used to compute the base rates). These should cancel out unless you have reason to believe the iceberg effect is larger for the rationalist community than for others. (For all you know, the iceberg effect might be lower than baseline due to norms about speaking clearly and stating one’s mind.)
b) women who were harassed/assaulted have left the movement which changes your distribution,
Maybe? This seems more plausible to confound the data than a) or c), but again there are reasons to suppose the effect might lean the other way. (Women might be more willing to tolerate bad behavior if they think it’s important to work on alignment than they would tolerate at say, their local Magic the Gathering group).
c) women who would enter your movement otherwise now stay away due to whisper networks and bad vibes.
Even if true, I don’t see how that would be relevant here? Women who enter the movement, get harassed, and then leave would make the harassment rate seem lower because their incidents don’t get counted. Women who never entered the movement in the first place wouldn’t affect the rate at all.
While many of these claims are “old news” to those communities, many of these claims are fresh. The baseline rate reasoning is flawed because a) sexual assault remains the most underreported crime, so there is likely instead an iceberg effect, and b) women who were harassed/assaulted have left the movement which changes your distribution, and c) women who would enter your movement otherwise now stay away due to whisper networks and bad vibes.
Can you clarify which specific claims are new? A claim which hasn’t been previously reported in a mainstream news article might still be known to people who have been following community meta-drama.
I’m not sure how this refutes the base rate argument. The iceberg effect exists for both the rationalist community and for every other community you might compare it to (including the ones used to compute the base rates). These should cancel out unless you have reason to believe the iceberg effect is larger for the rationalist community than for others. (For all you know, the iceberg effect might be lower than baseline due to norms about speaking clearly and stating one’s mind.)
Maybe? This seems more plausible to confound the data than a) or c), but again there are reasons to suppose the effect might lean the other way. (Women might be more willing to tolerate bad behavior if they think it’s important to work on alignment than they would tolerate at say, their local Magic the Gathering group).
Even if true, I don’t see how that would be relevant here? Women who enter the movement, get harassed, and then leave would make the harassment rate seem lower because their incidents don’t get counted. Women who never entered the movement in the first place wouldn’t affect the rate at all.