AstroAg17 said:

---

Even the term proxy makes implications that I don't think are justified. The stat you gave seems like a lower bound. 1-the number of criminal convictions seems like a good upper bound. I don't know of a quantitative argument as to why one bound is a better proxy than the other, or the average.

---

I agree it's a good lower bound. The number of criminal convictions seems an absurd upper bound if I'm understanding you correctly. As that would mean every single accuser that leads to a conviction for the accused was lying.

Quote:

---

The reason I believe the he false accusation rate is probably closer to the lower bound because people generally think it's wrong to make false accusations, and most people are good. In my experience accusations tend to be justified, and I think that is representative of people in general. That's not a statistical argument and I can't express it in numbers, and that's okay because we don't have the numbers we need. We can't pretend we have the relevant data when we don't.

---

Again, I do think it's useful data. Like I asked before, you don't think it would be useful if the data said the false accusation rate was 60% based on this methodology.

Having data on an upper or lower bound is good data. And from there intuitive reasoning based on our experiences may lead us toward one bound or the other. But without the bounds, you might think the lower bound is 30% and imagine the real number hangs closer to that.

Quote:

---

This conversation is very similar to one I had with K2 about determining the infection fatality rate of coronavirus early in the pandemic before we had a lot of good data.

---

That's a scenario where simple patience is the best response since better data is forthcoming.

dermdoc said:

---

No problem with your last sentence. in fact, it makes sense.

As I have posted above, I bet a lot of female bosses do not have private one on one meetings with makes if possible.

---

First, I'd like you to support the claim that the article is very biased since you threw that around so confidently.

Second, I'm not just talking about female bosses not meeting with male employees privately. But rather than women would prefer that if they were excluded from 1 on 1 conversation with male bosses their male colleges should be also.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree it's a good lower bound. The number of criminal convictions seems an absurd upper bound if I'm understanding you correctly. As that would mean every single accuser that leads to a conviction for the accused was lying.

---

Doesn't the lower bound mean that every single accuser that can't prove it is telling the truth?

---

Yes, the lower bound is simple the best-case scenario since we are only looking at demonstrably false incidents. (this is under the premise that all incidents identified as false were correctly done which seems reasonable enough).

Quote:

---

It's symmetric. And we have no data on whether people whose claims can't be proven or disproven tell the truth. We only know bounds.

---

I don't know what you mean by symmetric as the error doesn't have to be equal both ways but yes. Any case that ends in inconclusive evidence is omitted from the data set of knowable outcomes.

the premise would be that there is little fundamental difference in the interactions and characteristics of people involved in these cases where there is and is not evidence. Or the opposite if you were to claim a substantial deviation.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

No problem with your last sentence. in fact, it makes sense.

As I have posted above, I bet a lot of female bosses do not have private one on one meetings with makes if possible.

---

First, I'd like you to support the claim that the article is very biased since you threw that around so confidently.

Second, I'm not just talking about female bosses not meeting with male employees privately. But rather than women would prefer that if they were excluded from 1 on 1 conversation with male bosses their male colleges should be also.

---

I have run a monthly Derm Journal Club since 1984 and have therefore reviewed thousands of scientific journals.

I always look at where the article came from. And yes, different medical schools, medical companies, docs, have biases. When the article comes from End Violence Against Women I take that into account.

To me, the entire tone of the article is written from the viewpoint of the female accuser. And they used non scientific stats imho to back up their already pre conceived view. If this was a medical article, I would discount it.

And I try to be unbiased and have two daughters and a female doc partner. If you do not see the bias just by reading the first page, you and I are never going to agree.

Just curious, do you think Brett Kavanaugh was treated fairly? And that Ms. Blausey Ford had a credible claim against him?

Zobel said:

---

Here's another way to think of it.

Regardless of how common false accusations are or are not out there in the world - how important is your career and reputation to you, and what is a prudent way to take reasonable precautions to secure them?

Because, let me tell you, you don't have to be asking for it to have it happen to you. And it doesn't necessarily come from who you'd expect.

---

I have never been accused but this rings true with stories from doc friends.

Quote:

---

Just curious, do you think Brett Kavanaugh was treated fairly? And that Ms. Blausey Ford had a credible claim against him?

---

I'd ask what makes you think you know the actual truth either. The event "happened" in 1982.

Not even the actors can be expected to know the events with 100% clarity.

Quote:

---

I have run a monthly Derm Journal Club since 1984 and have therefore reviewed thousands of scientific journals.

I always look at where the article came from. And yes, different medical schools, medical companies, docs, have biases. When the article comes from End Violence Against Women I take that into account.

---

And you said this one is very baised, Should be easy to show where.

Quote:

---

To me, the entire tone of the article is written from the viewpoint of the female accuser. And they used non scientific stats imho to back up their already pre conceived view. If this was a medical article, I would discount it.

---

Show me an example

Quote:

---

And I try to be unbiased and have two daughters and a female doc partner. If you do not see the bias just by reading the first page, you and I are never going to agree.

---

"the issue of false reporting may be one of the most important barriers to successfully investigating and prosecuting sexual assault, especially with cases involving non-strangers. In this article, we will begin by reviewing the research on the percentage of false reports and then go on to discuss some of the complex issues underlying societal beliefs and attitudes in this area. How Many Sexual Assault Reports are False? One of the most common questions we address in training presentations with professionals as well as personal conversations with lay people is how many sexual assault reports are false. In the research literature, estimates for the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false have varied widely, virtually across the entire possible spectrum. For example, a very comprehensive review article documented estimates in the literature ranging from 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, very few of these estimates are based on research that could be considered credible. Most are reported without the kind of information that would be needed to evaluate their reliability and validity. A few are little more than published opinions, based either on personal experience or a non-systematic review (e.g., of police files, interviews with police investigators, or other information with unknown reliability and validity). Prior "research:" The Kanin study In the most frequently cited study on this topic, Professor Eugene Kanin (1994) reported that 41% of the 109 sexual assault reports made to one midwestern police agency were deemed to be false over a 9-year time period. However, the determination that the charges were false was made solely by the detectives; this evaluation was not reviewed substantively by the researcher or anyone else. As Lisak (2007) describes in an article published in the Sexual Assault Report: "Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own 'evaluation' of the police reports for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research providing a 'reliability' analysis. This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to ensure that observations are not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer" (p. 2)."

That's the entirety of the text on the first page. Which part is so bad you would discredit it?

Quote:

---

Just curious, do you think Brett Kavanaugh was treated fairly? And that Ms. Blausey Ford had a credible claim against him?

---

When claims are that old it's very tough to both accuse another or defend yourself. Ford didn't remember a number of important details and even if what she said happened did, it's highly unlikely anyone would remember the details over that length of time. And there were no witnesses who could corroborate or deny. The only ones simply stated they didn't remember much which is exactly what you would expect.

He got the job, I don't think anyone accused of something like this that strongly is going to get a fair shake if they are totally innocent. Was he? I don't know. I just know there wasn't enough to find him guilty. She made the claim prior to his nomination and took a polygraph which helps her case. As you say these things often go unreported. But we simply need more evidence than that. It's also plausible that something inappropriate but not as extreme as what she remembers happened. I don't know. You seem to treat it as a case where we have verifiable proof against it. I don't see that as the case here.

Quote:

---

He didn't ask about the truth. He asked whether Kavanaugh was treated fairly or if Ms. Ford had a credible claim. You're right, no one knows the truth after so, so long. That's why, in our legal system, we have stuff like statutes of limitation and statutes of repose. It violates our fundamental concepts of fairness for claims 30-40 years old to be dredged up for the first time, and impossible for the accused to counter.

---

Were talking about the BGR and it's application. That's the implication.

it's not like we are having a legal debate about Cavanaugh/Blausey Ford in the middle of this.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

He didn't ask about the truth. He asked whether Kavanaugh was treated fairly or if Ms. Ford had a credible claim. You're right, no one knows the truth after so, so long. That's why, in our legal system, we have stuff like statutes of limitation and statutes of repose. It violates our fundamental concepts of fairness for claims 30-40 years old to be dredged up for the first time, and impossible for the accused to counter.

---

Were talking about the BGR and it's application. That's the implication.

it's not like we are having a legal debate about Cavanaugh/Blausey Ford in the middle of this.

---

But it has everything to do with why people are in favor of the BGR. When someone like Blausy Ford makes accusations from decades before without witnesses and it almost costs a guy the SC and harms his family, that makes the BGR much more attractive and reasonable. And if you support accusations like this, you are not helping your cause if you are against the BGR.

Men watched how Kavanaugh was treated. And Clarence Thomas.

And that has nothing to do with the legality of anything.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have run a monthly Derm Journal Club since 1984 and have therefore reviewed thousands of scientific journals.

I always look at where the article came from. And yes, different medical schools, medical companies, docs, have biases. When the article comes from End Violence Against Women I take that into account.

---

And you said this one is very baised, Should be easy to show where.

Quote:

---

To me, the entire tone of the article is written from the viewpoint of the female accuser. And they used non scientific stats imho to back up their already pre conceived view. If this was a medical article, I would discount it.

---

Show me an example

Quote:

---

And I try to be unbiased and have two daughters and a female doc partner. If you do not see the bias just by reading the first page, you and I are never going to agree.

---

"the issue of false reporting may be one of the most important barriers to successfully investigating and prosecuting sexual assault, especially with cases involving non-strangers. In this article, we will begin by reviewing the research on the percentage of false reports and then go on to discuss some of the complex issues underlying societal beliefs and attitudes in this area. How Many Sexual Assault Reports are False? One of the most common questions we address in training presentations with professionals as well as personal conversations with lay people is how many sexual assault reports are false. In the research literature, estimates for the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false have varied widely, virtually across the entire possible spectrum. For example, a very comprehensive review article documented estimates in the literature ranging from 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, very few of these estimates are based on research that could be considered credible. Most are reported without the kind of information that would be needed to evaluate their reliability and validity. A few are little more than published opinions, based either on personal experience or a non-systematic review (e.g., of police files, interviews with police investigators, or other information with unknown reliability and validity). Prior "research:" The Kanin study In the most frequently cited study on this topic, Professor Eugene Kanin (1994) reported that 41% of the 109 sexual assault reports made to one midwestern police agency were deemed to be false over a 9-year time period. However, the determination that the charges were false was made solely by the detectives; this evaluation was not reviewed substantively by the researcher or anyone else. As Lisak (2007) describes in an article published in the Sexual Assault Report: "Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own 'evaluation' of the police reports for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research providing a 'reliability' analysis. This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to ensure that observations are not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer" (p. 2)."

That's the entirety of the text on the first page. Which part is so bad you would discredit it?

Quote:

---

Just curious, do you think Brett Kavanaugh was treated fairly? And that Ms. Blausey Ford had a credible claim against him?

---

When claims are that old it's very tough to both accuse another or defend yourself. Ford didn't remember a number of important details and even if what she said happened did, it's highly unlikely anyone would remember the details over that length of time. And there were no witnesses who could corroborate or deny. The only ones simply stated they didn't remember much which is exactly what you would expect.

He got the job, I don't think anyone accused of something like this that strongly is going to get a fair shake if they are totally innocent. Was he? I don't know. I just know there wasn't enough to find him guilty. She made the claim prior to his nomination and took a polygraph which helps her case. As you say these things often go unreported. But we simply need more evidence than that. It's also plausible that something inappropriate but not as extreme as what she remembers happened. I don't know. You seem to treat it as a case where we have verifiable proof against it. I don't see that as the case here.

---

Agree. And a witness would have helped with the truth either way, correct?

People who supported Anita Hill and Blausey Ford seem oblivious to the unintended consequences these unfounded accusations cause.

Male and female bosses watched. And learned.

And you do not see the basic discrediting of the police reports and giving credibility to the female accusers?

Re read the part about the police and detectives. Subtle yet commonly used tactic to discredit one side over the other.

And it took me a long time before I could critically read articles like this. Years.

And I have biases also so there is that. But I do not look at this as a male/female thing. I look at this just like med mal which is a liability that is easily covered with a witness.

So as a business owner I am biased. Also want to protect my reputation which is very important to me.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Just curious, do you think Brett Kavanaugh was treated fairly? And that Ms. Blausey Ford had a credible claim against him?

---

I'd ask what makes you think you know the actual truth either. The event "happened" in 1982.

Not even the actors can be expected to know the events with 100% clarity.

---

So if a woman accused your spouse without a witness from an event 30 years before with alcohol involved, would you support her?

dermdoc said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Just curious, do you think Brett Kavanaugh was treated fairly? And that Ms. Blausey Ford had a credible claim against him?

---

I'd ask what makes you think you know the actual truth either. The event "happened" in 1982.

Not even the actors can be expected to know the events with 100% clarity.

---

So if a woman accused your spoise without a witness from an event 30 years before with alcohol involved, would you support her?

---

No. Conversely if your spouse accused someone else 30 years before and had little evidence would you support her?

dermdoc said:

---

Agree. And a witness would have helped with the truth either way, correct?

---

Doubtful on that timeline, but possible.

Quote:

---

Male and female bosses watched. And learned.

---

I've seen little evidence of females practicing this. And again, it seems this is being advocated primarily by men, and women seem to feel they will be at a professional disadvantage if the men don't treat their male employees by the same standard.

She would never had waited 30 years. And neither would have I.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Agree. And a witness would have helped with the truth either way, correct?

---

Doubtful on that timeline, but possible.

Quote:

---

Male and female bosses watched. And learned.

---

I've seen little evidence of females practicing this. And again, it seems this is being advocated primarily by men, and women seem to feel they will be at a professional disadvantage if the men don't treat their male employees by the same standard.

---

Because I know of no cases of alleged same sex sexual harassment cases in these situations.

Bosses are people. They perceive liability and potential assaults on their reputation and respond accordingly. Just poke you do with similar threats. It is human nature.

This is not about being PC.

dermdoc said:

---

She would never had waited 30 years. And neither would have I.

---

a lot of women telling the truth do wait. Some come out due to increased confidence from other accusers saying the same.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Agree. And a witness would have helped with the truth either way, correct?

---

Doubtful on that timeline, but possible.

Quote:

---

Male and female bosses watched. And learned.

---

I've seen little evidence of females practicing this. And again, it seems this is being advocated primarily by men, and women seem to feel they will be at a professional disadvantage if the men don't treat their male employees by the same standard.

---

How many female doctors you know?

dermdoc said:

---

Because I know of no cases of alleged same sex sexual harassment cases in these situations.

---

A quick google search can disabuse you of that notion.

Quote:

---

Bosses are people. They perceive liability and potential assaults on their reputation and respond accordingly. Just poke you do with similar threats. It is human nature.

---

I'm not saying this isn't a response to a perceived threat. I'm saying it's mostly coming from men as a solution.

Quote:

---

This is not about being PC.

---

Where did I ever claim that

It seems like some want it both ways. They want folks like Anita Hill, Blausey Ford, the Duke lacrosse team accuser, etc.
Yet do not want that to affect male/female interactions in the workplace.

Unintended consequences

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Agree. And a witness would have helped with the truth either way, correct?

---

Doubtful on that timeline, but possible.

Quote:

---

Male and female bosses watched. And learned.

---

I've seen little evidence of females practicing this. And again, it seems this is being advocated primarily by men, and women seem to feel they will be at a professional disadvantage if the men don't treat their male employees by the same standard.

---

How many female doctors you know?

---

One, but plenty other females in managerial roles.

dermdoc said:

---

It seems like some want it both ways. They want folks like Anita Hill, Blausey Ford, the Duke lacrosse team accuser, etc.
Yet do not want that to affect male/female interactions in the workplace.

Unintended consequences

---

Actually,

as I said before they seem willing to accept this change if it doesn't put them ad a disadvantage over the coworkers.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Because I know of no cases of alleged same sex sexual harassment cases in these situations.

---

A quick google search can disabuse you of that notion.

Quote:

---

Bosses are people. They perceive liability and potential assaults on their reputation and respond accordingly. Just poke you do with similar threats. It is human nature.

---

I'm not saying this isn't a response to a perceived threat. I'm saying it's mostly coming from men as a solution.

Quote:

---

This is not about being PC.

---

Where did I ever claim that

---

Maybe I projected when you said that make employees should have to have a witness with a male boss.

To me that is PC as there is little or no liability from a sexual harassment claim.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It seems like some want it both ways. They want folks like Anita Hill, Blausey Ford, the Duke lacrosse team accuser, etc.
Yet do not want that to affect male/female interactions in the workplace.

Unintended consequences

---

Actually,

as I said before they seem willing to accept this change if it doesn't put them ad a disadvantage over the coworkers.

---

I am okay with that. Remember I have daughters. And they agree with me.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It seems like some want it both ways. They want folks like Anita Hill, Blausey Ford, the Duke lacrosse team accuser, etc.
Yet do not want that to affect male/female interactions in the workplace.

Unintended consequences

---

Actually,

as I said before they seem willing to accept this change if it doesn't put them ad a disadvantage over the coworkers.

---

I am okay with that. Remember I have daughters. And they agree with me.

---

You are talking out both side of your face it seems. I just stated the issue women seem to have is the disadvantage that would come if they were treated differently than a male employee by a male boss. But right above you post that such a measure is PC nonsense and that same sex scenarios don't happen (they do). But even if they didn't women would feel at a disadvantage if they didn't have the same access as their male coworkers.

Did you read where I said I agreed with you about not giving males an advantage? I am not talking about restricting access. And how often are same sex harassment claims filed in situations like this? I do not know but have never heard of it anecdotally.

Can you give me some famous examples. I have mentioned mine.

I did, you also said it was PC and unnecessary so it's confusing.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I did, you also said it was PC and unnecessary so it's confusing.

---

You gave famous same sex allegations like Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas? Where?

And we are both on agreement on access. Do not make it hard.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

I did, you also said it was PC and unnecessary so it's confusing.

---

You gave famous same sex allegations like Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas? Where?

And we are both on agreement on access. Do not make it hard.

---

No, I told you that same-sex allegations very much do happen. A simple google search will show you plenty of evidence of that. No there isn't a supreme court case, why should that matter?

If you don't treat the male employees the same as female ones how is there equal access in any practical sense?

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

I did, you also said it was PC and unnecessary so it's confusing.

---

You gave famous same sex allegations like Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas? Where?

And we are both on agreement on access. Do not make it hard.

---

No, I told you that same-sex allegations very much do happen. A simple google search will show you plenty of evidence of that. No there isn't a supreme court case, why should that matter?

If you don't treat the male employees the same as female ones how is there equal access in any practical sense?

---

Having a witness for a female employee and not for a male does not restrict access if you do it right.

I am done for the evening. Have a good night my friend.