3 ms·

Isn't this not as meaningful as the mean, because the minimum doesnt really tell you about true capability? I can also easily construct an institution that sati

Isn't this not as meaningful as the mean, because the minimum doesnt really tell you about true capability? I can also easily construct an institution that satisfies your parameters, the minimums of two groups match, as in they have a token member at C for every group, but the characteristic performance of all members is different? This in my eyes amounts to a simplification that is neat mathematically, but removes most of the useful information. I admit though that if the minimums did not match very well, that is an obvious sign of bias. Edit: I suppose what I'm essentially saying is, what if minimums do match, then we cannot rule out bias.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
If you think you can construct examples that break my test, go ahead and do it. I'm curious to see what you can come up with. However, your claim that you can have "a token member at C for every group" is merely the claim that adversarial sampling can destroy any statistical procedure. So what? This is boring mathematically. Nor is it relevant to the problem at hand unless you want to claim that First Round Capital is actively conspiring to both a) be biased and earn less money and b) waste more money hiding that bias by funding tokens.