jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (02/29/84)
> Psychological tests given to convicted rapists > (and since rape convictions are rare, the chance that a significant > number of these men were wrongly convicted is also rare) show that > they are not significantly different from ordinary men. No crazier, > not insane, and no more violent. Wrong! These tests show that they are not significantly different from other men *to the best of the ability of the test to measure such a difference*. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The result quoted above may say far more about the tests or the motives of the people who gave them than it says about the rapists. What is the criteria for "difference"? For "significant"? How do you measure sanity or violence? These men are different from most men in one obvious way... only the most radical of feminists would claim most men are rapists, but these men are. Any psychological test which claims no difference simply wasn't looking in the right place or with the right "eyes". I can't understand why some people have so much faith in psychological testing. I have very little; when no reference is given, as in the above, I have none at all. I'm sorry, Ariel, but it's late, and you hit a nerve. For the record, I don't believe rapists are necessarily insane. the sceptical, Jeff Winslow
ariels@orca.UUCP (03/06/84)
Some people in this newsgroup seem to have the idea that rapists are crazy, insane, or overly violent in comparison to other men. This is not the case. Psychological tests given to convicted rapists (and since rape convictions are rare, the chance that a significant number of these men were wrongly convicted is also rare) show that they are not significantly different from ordinary men. No crazier, not insane, and no more violent. I am neither making claims nor drawing conclusions from this fact. At least not publically. Ariel Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels