Statistical data

[China Doll]

I didn't want to hijack, so I decided to create my own thread on this issue. It was hastily written, so I hope that I clearly express the ideas I am trying to express. Also, I am not posting this to attack anyone. I assure you that this was written in conjunction with a rather cheery disposition. I apologize if it comes across as anything other than an action performed with the intention of providing some interesting information and stimulating a potentially interesting discussion!

I think we all need to remember how statistics work. Saying that a group of 10,000 independent providers shows a higher incidence of past sexual trauma than a similar group of 10,000 non escort women is very different from saying that most escorts have been sexually abused. Also, statistics on teenage streetwalkers are useless. They cannot be extrapolated to our population. It does not quite work that way, I'm afraid.

I did a lot of professional research on this very topic, and I can say with confidence that there is little to no research on prostitutes who were not streetwalkers. Teenage prostitutes are an entirely different population; how many are on the streets by choice? I’m not going to outline the differences between an adult escort and a teenage streetwalker, because I doubt that it is necessary. My point is that such data are useless to us.

Would I be surprised if I saw statistics that showed a higher incidence of sexual abuse in the escort population? No, I don’t think I would be. Would I be surprised if most escorts had been sexually abused as children? Absolutely! I once heard someone state that “More often than not, abusers were abused as children.” Wow. That is quite a statement. Actually, it has been shown that far fewer than half of people who abuse others were abused themselves. This hardly translates to “more often than not.”

In summary, we have to remember the differences between “tendencies” and “majorities.” A pet peeve of mine is the misinterpretation of statistical data. Example:

Person A hears that there is a tendency for escorts to be more likely to have experienced child sexual abuse (CSA).

Person A takes this to mean that this means a strong tendency. Well, guess what? A difference of 1 or 2% could be statistically significant! In other words, if 34% (made up number) of nonescort women (similar in socioeconomic status, race, age, etc.) had experienced sexual trauma in their pasts and 36% of escort women had, this would be a comparative tendency for escorts to have experienced sexual trauma in their pasts.

The following is my own personal rant that is more of a spinoff on this topic than a direct response to other threads:

Statistics are also about averages, not individuals. Let’s pretend that there is a relationship between escort vs. nonescort professions and incidence of past sexual trauma. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable idea as long as we don’t blow it out of proportion. So, are escorts more likely to have experienced past sexual abuse than nonescorts? Statistically yes, but remember not to make inappropriate extrapolations by misusing the data at hand. Is an escort more likely to have experienced past sexual abuse than a nonescort? NO! No one woman is more likely to have experienced anything because of her profession. The data is not useful for individuals.

Pardon my abrasive “tendency” to place emphases here, but it’s a pet peeve of mine. I actually had a discussion with someone recently that irritated me to no end. Perhaps this will put my reason for caring enough to post this thread into perspective for some…

This person said something about how another person was “unintelligent” because she was “pretty.” Hmm. I informed him that countless studies have shown a positive correlation between good looks and intelligence (Positive correlation = As one increases, so does the other). His response? “Well, no, that can’t be true, because I know pretty person x and she is not smart. I also know unattractive man y who is very smart. So I disagree.” Oh dear…

So, kind sir, do you disagree that countless studies have been done that show this? Or do you think that those countless studies are all wrong?

The explanation of these data is quite simple. The third variable that controls these two other variables is the gene variable. What goes along with intelligence and good looks? Good genes. He couldn’t grasp the concept that statistics are averages and not individual absolutes. I could have played his game, too, by naming people who were attractive/intelligent and unattractive/unintelligent, but I’m not going to spout nonsense to convince someone who doesn’t understand a simple concept.

If I did fail to properly outline this concept in this thread, there is a great example using overlapping bell curves that I could use, so let me know if my explanation is insufficient!

In conclusion, does abuse play a huge role in the escort world? I’m sure it does, just like it plays a huge role in any definable world. Abuse numbers seem to be high for most groups, don’t they? So if the difference between abuse rates is a small but statistically significant, do we really want to say that abuse plays a huge role in this world in comparison to others? Rethink it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by China Doll

So if the difference between abuse rates is a small but statistically significant, do we really want to say that abuse plays a huge role in this world in comparison to others? Rethink it.

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes I would agree....but it does have a more scientific slant than just stating one's own life experience or belief's.

Every person has a story but you have to gather stats somewhere and then break them down into usable theories.

Its like saying that all the 9/11 terrorist were Muslim but not all Muslims are terrorist.

Abuse plays a large role in this industry as much as we would all like to think it does not.

btw I agree with Becky. Lemonaide is better than Lemons.Hi Bec

If 75% of streetwalkers have been abused, how can you ask me to rethink what I said?

I see you point...if parallels what I said, though in a much more articulate way.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

If 75% of streetwalkers have been abused, how can you ask me to rethink what I said?

Her point is that streetwalkers<>escorts on many dimensions. Therefore the fact that there may be a statistically significant difference between the incidence of abuse among streetwalkers compared to the general female population (if in fact there is one), tells you nothing about the relationship between incidence of abuse in escorts compared to the general population.

Sheesh, I sound like TTH.

[China Doll]

Exactly, pjorourke! Thank you for clarifying.

[ElisabethWhispers]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

...
Sheesh, I sound like TTH.

And that's a problem?

Elisabeth

P.S. Great thread, China Doll!
P.S.S. I'm in smiley hell tonight. I can't keep my hands away from them!

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Her pint is that streetwalkers<>escorts on many dimensions. Therefore the fact that there may be a statistically significant difference between the incidence of abuse among streetwalkers compared to the general female population (if in fact there is one), tells you nothing about the relationship between incidence of abuse in escorts compared to the general population.

Sheesh, I sound like TTH.

Exactly. CD does an excellent job of laying out some of the perils of taking the soundbites coming out of "studies" at face value and understanding the methodology of the "study".

Originally Posted by China Doll

In conclusion, does abuse play a huge role in the escort world? I’m sure it does, just like it plays a huge role in any definable world. Abuse numbers seem to be high for most groups, don’t they? So if the difference between abuse rates is a small but statistically significant, do we really want to say that abuse plays a huge role in this worldin comparison to others? Rethink it.

italics added to CD's comments by me

CD -- clarify this if you will -- but I was with you all the way thru -- but I was surprised that (an obvious) quant gal like you is more interested "spin" or "message" than letting the numbers speak. That said, I agree with your broader point, with or without numbers.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by ElisabethWhispers

And that's a problem?

In my world, yes.

[China Doll]

Originally posted by atlcomedy:
"CD -- clarify this if you will -- but I was with you all the way thru -- but I was surprised that (an obvious) quant gal like you is more interested "spin" or "message" than letting the numbers speak. That said, I agree with your broader point, with or without numbers."

Ha ha, I thought someone would make mention of this! The reason is quite simple, actually, but perhaps not the one you want to hear. As I said, I did a lot of research on this topic. This means that I have stacks and stacks of articles on the subject that I'd rather not go through to find the exact numbers. I remember everything else quite clearly, I assure you, and anyone who chose to find said numbers in psychology journals would also find that my words ring true. Because I am not willing to search for them, I tried to keep the post more general. I may know the general range for a statistic here and there, but if I can't solidly back it up, I'd rather not state it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Her point is that streetwalkers<>escorts on many dimensions. Therefore the fact that there may be a statistically significant difference between the incidence of abuse among streetwalkers compared to the general female population (if in fact there is one), tells you nothing about the relationship between incidence of abuse in escorts compared to the general population.

Sheesh, I sound like TTH.

Street walkers are part of the world of prostitution. Therefore to say that abuse is a huge problem is true.

While I agree that you need to seperate the different catagories , I had basically said that in the post she seemed to take exception to.

I would in fact ask CD to reread what I had written.

I had said that all terrorist (9/11) were Muslim yet not all Muslims were terrorist. I had hoped that people would be able to extrapolate that I did not think that ALL forms of prostitution had as high of an abuse rate as street prostitution. Yet you can not ignore the fact that in street walkers abuse is an commonality. A very high commonality.

Originally Posted by China Doll

Originally posted by atlcomedy:
but if I can't solidly back it up, I'd rather not state it.

Yet that is exactly what you have done. Think about that.

btw I am not disputing your contentions. I am just saying that you have not backed them up with facts.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

I had said that all terrorist (9/11) were Muslim yet not all Muslims were terrorist. I had hoped that people would be able to extrapolate that I did not think that ALL forms of prostitution had as high of an abuse rate as street prostitution. Yet you can not ignore the fact that in street walkers abuse is an commonality. A very high commonality.

A more relevant comparison would be the rate of abuse among streetwalkers to the rate of abuse among the general population of women at that socio-economic level. (Which of course makes the assumption that socio-economic level is a factor -- which it is in most behavioral issues.)

Damn, I'm becoming TTH.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

A more relevant comparison would be the rate of abuse among streetwalkers to the rate of abuse among the general population of women at that socio-economic level. (Which of course makes the assumption that socio-economic level is a factor -- which it is in most behavioral issues.)

I had said that there needs to be more data but that one has to start somewhere. btw do you think drug addiction is a class issue?

Originally Posted by WTF

Every person has a story but you have to gather stats somewhere and then break them down into usable theories.

In the book SuperFreakenomics the authors broke down some other myths. One being that pimps are bad. On the street level having a pimp equated into better clients and less abuse. Yet you will not here some of the ladies on here tooting that horn. Seems we all pick and choose our stats.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Damn, I'm becoming TTH.

That I would pay to see!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Damn, I'm becoming TTH.

Well, not quite.

In order to do that, you'd have to offer an enthusiastic endorsement of Paul Krugman's economic policy proposals!

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, not quite.

In order to do that, you'd have to offer an enthusiastic endorsement of Paul Krugman's economic policy proposals!

Damn little chance of that.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

btw do you think drug addiction is a class issue?

Yes, but only in the sense that the drugs of choice vary by class.

[China Doll]

Originally posted by wtf:
"Yet that is exactly what you have done. Think about that."

Hardly. If I remember correctly, I simply explained the way statistics work. Would you have me look up some direct quotations from my old college statistics books or relay my resume to you to prove that I know how statistics work? I was under the impression that people do not need to cite information that is common knowledge within the informational world in question.

Oh, and by the way, wtf, you are taking this post way too personally. Your post was not even the one I took exception to in the first place.