Maximilian Wallpaper · @max_wall_2000
8th Jun 2014 from TwitLonger
In response to @AllyFogg's response to my response to @AllyFogg's response to @marstrina's response to @AllyFogg...
@marstrina's original response for broader context: http://everydayvictimblaming.com/submissions/4525/
This post is in direct response to this from @AllyFogg to me: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s2245c
> It seems to me you are making two contradictory claims.
So what are these claims you say I'm making:
1. That you presented the stats in a different and misleading way to Polly Neate; and
2. That we disagree on whether you were using the same or different data.
Firstly, the claims you say I'm making are not contradictory - it's perfectly possible to present statistics in a different way using the same or different data. You can give the mean of one dataset and the median of another, for instance, or of the same. No contradiction there. Secondly, and more importantly, I never made the second claim. Not once.
Not a good start there.
So I'm not going to go through your sums, because it relates to something I never said, and it's working you really should have done before shooting your mouth off. But let's go through the charge of presenting misleading statistics. Here is the section that kicked this off, which I believe is symptomatic of your whole approach (from http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s21pp8):
> "Women make up 89 per cent of those who experience four or more
> incidents of domestic violence."
This is what you quoted from Polly Neate. It is a proportion of women in the total sample of both women and men that experience this category of domestic violence. Clear and unambiguous. You could argue with the specific figure, but you didn't. You responded with the following:
> This stat comes from Walby and Allen's analysis of the 2001 British
> Crime Survey. The most recent stats are on Appendix Table 4.12 here:
> http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-328149
> but let me help you with a screengrab:
> http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/files/2014/06/DV-table-4.12.png
> You'll see that the data is no longer categorised as 'four or more'
> but if you add up all the groups above 'three or more' you get 21% of
> male victims and 21% of female victims.
What is the relevance of these two percentages to Neate's statistic? Firstly, they are barely comparable to each other, at least related to the argument you were making. Neate's statistic is between men and women, the ones you presented are within men and within women. Now, we both know that 21% of a hundred is different to 21% of a million, for instance, so without providing context (and yes, doing your sums), it is impossible to know how these numbers relate to each other, let alone to Neate's. And yet you presented them anyway, and presented them as if they implied some sort of equality. Then went on:
> Once you get to six or more there is a significant difference (8% of
> male, 13% of female) but that vanishes again with the most severe -
> those suffering 21 times or more in a year. And again, I stress, I
> don't think anybody wants to argue that only 13% of female DV victims
> are "real" victims do we?
Ignoring the "significant difference" which you seem to have used colloquially and not statistically, you again present separate group's statistics as if you can compare them for this argument, or compare to them to Neate's figure. But since you have presented them this way, a cooperative reader should assume that these numbers are related. Not related in that they came from the same data, but related in that they can be meaningfully compared. A writer should know this, and not rely on the reader to do the sums they couldn't be bothered to do.
What you've done is hand-waved away any difference in proportions *between* men and women by presenting statistics that show the proportional severity *within* men is the same as the proportional severity *within* women. In doing so you've slyly implied equality where there is none. This is what's known in the trade as Bullshit.
And given that you have presented the data in such a misleading way, it is pretty galling that you then levelled that charge at Neate (https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/475228040352370688 https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/475228153087287296):
> Then you might want to get in touch with Polly Neate and ask her why
> she took an official data set that presented proportional percentages
> and converted them into a single aggregate in order to make it look
> more impressive
The beauty of data is that we can quite reasonably discover things from them, we don't need to just read out what's presented to us as it's presented. She gave a reasonable and relevant statistic to make the point she was making. What you did was counter with irrelevant statistics in order to obscure it. That's the difference. But back to your explanation:
> If anyone feels misled by that presentation I will happily apologise,
> but must point out that I did so because it was in the context of
> discussing an ONS data table covering these precise data, and I
> described the data as they were presented there. No conspiracy.
Your "I'm just reading numbers" defence holds no water. You responded to a point about inequality with irrelevant statistics that implied equality. If you want to disagree with the original point you show your disagreement in the context of the original point. You can't just dump data and bullshit on people until they submit. With all due respect, I cannot believe I'm having to say this to an apparently qualified and published writer.
Now let's skip your working and see how you might have responded had you done it in the first place:
> "Neate was using old data. If we use the most up to date statistics,
> 62% of those suffering three or more incidents are female, while 73%
> of those suffering six or more incidents are female. So there is a
> gender effect with more repeated abuse, but less pronounced than she
> suggests"
> That would perhaps have been a more direct, like for like response,
> but it would have required me to do lots of sums which, until this
> morning I didn't really believe were necessary to make my point.
Setting aside that you apparently knew what your conclusion was before you researched it, this response is better but still misleading. Given that you don't know how Neate arrived at her figure (https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/475237725100974080), that you're not confident of the specifics of your working ("If I've got any specifics wrong I apologise, but the principles remain intact"), and that you would need to do a more complicated statistical analysis than eyeballing raw percentages to be confident of the comparison, the most you *can* currently be confident of saying is that with this dataset we see the same gendered effect as Neate presented. That women are the primary victims of domestic violence. *That* is the principle that remains intact with Neate's figure and your late working. It's not the "feminists lie" dog-whistle you may have been hoping for, but it is at least relevant and honest. You would do well to strive for both next time.