The correct application of Schrodinger’s cat to rape

I was emotionally torn when I recently came across an article entitled “Schrodinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced“. Part of me is always excited about references to Schrodinger’s cat in the cultural zeitgeist, while the other part of me was mortified by the arguments laid forward by the writer of the article. Before I address the ridiculous article, I just want to summarize Schrodinger’s thought experiment about his cat.

Basically, Schrodinger’s cat is about the argument that any reality is modified by observation of that system. Under Schrodinger’s thought experiment, if you put a cat in a steel room with a radioactive substance that decays, the decay activates a geiger counter which will cause a discharge of hydrocyanic gas that, in turn, kills the cat. However, you only leave the cat in the room for an hour, where there is an equal probability that the decay occurs.  Therefore, if there is decay the cat dies, and if there is no decay the cat survives. Fun fact: Schrodinger was the original Jigsaw.

By Schrodinger’s estimation, unless you opened the door on the steel room, you would have no idea whether the cat was alive or dead. And, probabilistically, the cat exists in a “blurred” state of existence. In essence, the opening of the door skews the reality from this blurred state of existence to the binary resolution of “alive” or “dead”. This is a really cool example of how our observations affect our perception of reality.

Admittedly, this is a very simplistic explanation of Schrodinger’s cat problem from a guy who really only understands it at a casual level. That being said, let’s move on to the concept of Schrodinger’s Rapist, a term coined by Phaedra Starling, a pen name for a person who is a:

romance novelist and licensed private investigator living in small New York City apartment with two large dogs. She practices Brazilian jiu-jitsu and makes world-class apricot muffins.

If you read the article, it’s a really misanthropic screed about how all men are potential rapists, or Schrodinger’s Rapists, because, as Ms. Starling states:

You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me.

First of all, I really don’t think that male sexual behavior falls under the laws of quantum dynamics. I believe that behavior can be more easily described by Newtonian explanations, and the most parsimonious explanation is likely the correct one.

Nevertheless, an interesting point is raised. When a woman looks at a man she doesn’t know, she has no idea whether he is a rapist or not. Therefore a man can’t approach a woman to try to convince her that he’s not a rapist without simultaneously convincing her that he is a rapist. A curious dilemma, as the only truly convincing non-rapist is a man who never talks to or has sex with women.

This is where Ms. Starling’s “Schrodinger’s cat” analogy falls apart. Under Ms. Starling’s impression of Schrodinger’s cat, she would keep opening the door to the chamber until the decay occurred and the cat was killed. Schrodinger at least was not a murderer.  In the same vain, it’s unfair to say that a man is a rapist until he sexually assaults you.  Perhaps men are rapists until you realize they’re not.  I don’t see where we progress as a society if all women only see men as potential rapists.  If I can make two take-away points from all of this discomfort, it is: 1. Don’t rape. and 2. Don’t misappropriate quantum mechanics.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The correct application of Schrodinger’s cat to rape

  1. If you are going to base much of your position on the false equivalency with Schrodinger’s thought experiment then I would have thought you should, at least, have highlighted that Schrodinger’s example depended upon there being an EQUAL probability that the cat may be alive or dead. Where is the equivalent probability in the rape scenario?. Firstly, although I don’t have any figures to cite, I don’t believe that 50% of the male population are rapists and secondly, the majority of rapes (approx two thirds according to a cursory glance at Wikipedia) are committed by someone known to the victim.
    Therefore, instead of being a reasonable position based on an equal probability that a random stranger approaching a woman may be a rapist the position appears to be an hysterical response involving the demonizing of ALL men for the sake of, in terms of probability, a negligible population of deviants.
    On the more general issue I believe the cartoon stereotype of the brutish stranger raper approaching in a menacing fashion is probably far less common than their smoother, more charming counterpart who will probably be doing their best to ensure that their target feels comfortable in their presence before attacking. These people may even use the Schrodinger’s Rapist guidelines to refine their tactics.
    Where the fear of stranger rape is so much higher than the actual risk of stranger rape I think we should be tackling the misconception rather than feeding it.

  2. Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though
    you relied on the video to make your point. You
    definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your
    intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could
    be giving us something enlightening to read?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s