Post by Drifter on Dec 16, 2017 7:04:19 GMT
Readers ...
Posters above and in many other threads want you to believe that the EAR was a teenager or, at most, 20 or 21 years of age.
And maybe he was.
But it is risky to bank on that as factual.
Posters above have posted specific recollections of a few EAR victims, pointing to a youthful age. What these posters don't say is that other EAR rape victims had a slightly different perspective on the guy's age.
From the Library section of Facts about the EAR case, and taken from the Crompton book, several EAR victims reported the guy was older than a teenager.
Victims report their estimate of the guy's age, in ...
Attack 12 >>> 30 to 40 years old
Attack 15 >>> 25 to 30 years old
Attack 24 >>> 21 to 35 years old
Attack 39 >>> late 20s
Attack 42 >>> 24 to 26 years old
Attack 44 >>> 25 to 30 years old.
You need to ask yourself ... why are posters skewing the results toward a teenager?
... because these posters are engaged in ... confirmation bias.
They have determined on their own that the guy was a teenager. So they pick and choose those trivial pieces of data that confirm their predetermined bias.
These posters could still be correct of course. Perhaps the guy really was a teenager. But that would mean that all those victims saying he was in his thirties or older must have been wrong. Which is possible. It's also possible that all those victims saying he was on the younger side could also be wrong.
We just don't know.
The important point here is to keep an open mind. There is no consensus on the guy's age. So take each estimate for what it's worth, about three grains of salt.
Try to understand how the mind can be fooled by confirmation bias. I might argue that having no opinion at all is better than having a wrong opinion.
Drifter
Posters above and in many other threads want you to believe that the EAR was a teenager or, at most, 20 or 21 years of age.
And maybe he was.
But it is risky to bank on that as factual.
Posters above have posted specific recollections of a few EAR victims, pointing to a youthful age. What these posters don't say is that other EAR rape victims had a slightly different perspective on the guy's age.
From the Library section of Facts about the EAR case, and taken from the Crompton book, several EAR victims reported the guy was older than a teenager.
Victims report their estimate of the guy's age, in ...
Attack 12 >>> 30 to 40 years old
Attack 15 >>> 25 to 30 years old
Attack 24 >>> 21 to 35 years old
Attack 39 >>> late 20s
Attack 42 >>> 24 to 26 years old
Attack 44 >>> 25 to 30 years old.
You need to ask yourself ... why are posters skewing the results toward a teenager?
... because these posters are engaged in ... confirmation bias.
They have determined on their own that the guy was a teenager. So they pick and choose those trivial pieces of data that confirm their predetermined bias.
These posters could still be correct of course. Perhaps the guy really was a teenager. But that would mean that all those victims saying he was in his thirties or older must have been wrong. Which is possible. It's also possible that all those victims saying he was on the younger side could also be wrong.
We just don't know.
The important point here is to keep an open mind. There is no consensus on the guy's age. So take each estimate for what it's worth, about three grains of salt.
Try to understand how the mind can be fooled by confirmation bias. I might argue that having no opinion at all is better than having a wrong opinion.
Drifter