Thirded. I can very easily imagine folks that are prudish or hyper-concerned about sex/gender or harassment being against *specific* “inappropriate things”, but possibly not being concerned about others. That isn’t probative, but it offers a way out that doesn’t point to errors in statistical thinking.
Thirded. I can very easily imagine folks that are prudish or hyper-concerned about sex/gender or harassment being against *specific* “inappropriate things”, but possibly not being concerned about others. That isn’t probative, but it offers a way out that doesn’t point to errors in statistical thinking.
As a counter to the counter, though, why would you mentally list anything as “inappropriate” if you don’t care about it? The bigger issue is the imprecision and the variability in definitions that it allows.
Thirded. I can very easily imagine folks that are prudish or hyper-concerned about sex/gender or harassment being against *specific* “inappropriate things”, but possibly not being concerned about others. That isn’t probative, but it offers a way out that doesn’t point to errors in statistical thinking.
As a counter to the counter, though, why would you mentally list anything as “inappropriate” if you don’t care about it? The bigger issue is the imprecision and the variability in definitions that it allows.