6 ms·
The problem here is language and what our actual objectives are. When people complain about bias, they are not really talking about mathematical bias, but abou
by hibikir 11y ago
The problem here is language and what our actual objectives are.
When people complain about bias, they are not really talking about mathematical bias, but about something else: Their idea of fairness. They are talking about discrimination. And when we are discussing that, we can't really think about whether rules are applied fairly or not, but whether the rules produce the outcomes that we want.
Let's go for a ludicrous example: We'll accept all applicants whose IQ is higher than their weight in pounds. We'll be explicitly discriminating against heavy people, but at the same time, we have pretty clear implicit biases against men, and ethnic groups who tend to be taller. We might as well have said that we prefer children and Japanese women. There's no need for mathematical bias: The bias comes from the rule selection.
So, in your example, if our actual objective is to graduate an even amount of people from groups A and B, we have to, explicitly, make it easier for group B to get the scholarship. And many times organizations have objectives like that.
As a more real example, let's consider a police department. If the objective is to have a racial makeup that represents the community, and different races have different drop-out rates, the candidate selection will prefer one kind over the other, precisely to counter the drop-out differential.
So when regular people, and not mathematicians, discuss bias, the mathematical definition is unimportant. The one important thing is our stated objectives.
- 55555 11y agoGreat comment. There are two types of fairness, (a) fair rules, and (b) fair outcome.
- rewqfdsa 11y agoFavoring fair outcome over having fair rules is against everything I believe. We should not strive for a participation trophy culture.
- lexcorvus 11y agoIndeed. The problem is that people frequently infer unfair rules from unequal outcomes, without taking into account the possibility of systematic group differences. Alan: I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Bob: How do you know there isn't equality of opportunity? Alan: Well, just look at how unequal the outcomes are! At this point, Bob would be wise to change the subject, because if he pressed on, he might get this: Bob: Can you give me an example? Alan: Group X is underrepresented in Field Y. Bob: Maybe Group X isn't as good at Field Y. Alan: What? That's racist and/or sexist! And if Bob were to make a comment to this effect on Hacker News, he's probably get downvoted. This is because most people agree with Alan, and many of them abuse their downvote privileges to punish ideas they disagree with rather than those that don't further the discussion. This degrades the quality of discourse, but at least it helps reassure the downvoters that they aren't racist and/or sexist.
- rewqfdsa 11y agoRight, and unwillingness to consider the possibility of group differences comes from a quasi-religious devotion to the blank slate model of human nature. The way radical egalitarians see it, we're not only equal in dignity, but in potential. That's a pretty view, but it's inconsistent with reality, and radical egalitarians need to come up with increasingly implausible explanations to explain everyday circumstances that make perfect sense once you drop the blank slate model.
- baddox 11y agoThere is a simple explanation for differences in abilities between groups that has nothing to do with their genetics are so-called natural ability: the fact that groups often grow up around other members of their group. Both nature and nurture are largely in common for many groups, so it could easily be either that causes the observed differences in ability.
- lexcorvus 11y agocould easily be either Or both. They're not mutually exclusive. Do Jamaican sprinters excel because they grow up around other sprinters or because they are blessed with natural ability? Yes. Simply put, or != xor.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lexcorvus 11y agoHey rewqfdsa, maybe shoot me an email some time. Address is in profile.
- superuser2 11y agoApply Occam's Razor to these supposed group differences. Which do you think is a more plausible reality? A. Interviewers prefer candidates who are like themselves, interviewers are mostly white men, therefore most hires are white men. B. The uterus and melanin both inhibit programming ability, interviewers are perfect judges of programming ability, therefore most hires are white men. To look at the present (incomplete) evidence and decide that B is the more likely story, is racism/sexism.
- iand 11y agoThis well-circulated image shows that making everyone a winner has merit in some circumstances. http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-equality-justice-baseball-fence.jpg http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-equality-justic... The left hand side is fair rules, the right hand side shows a fair outcome
- rewqfdsa 11y agoThe baseball game in the image wouldn't be worth if equality of outcome were the rule for baseball team tryouts. The entire game is based on fair competition under the rules pushing participants toward excellence. Inequality of outcome is the entire reason we see baseball played at a high level. When you demand equality of outcome regardless of talent or effort, you're asking for society to stagnate. You're asking for pervasive mediocrity. You're asking for us to kill effort and motivation. No thanks.
- vog 11y agoThe link is down (shows a jpeg with a single white pixel), but I guess that one is the same: http://themetapicture.com/points-of-view/ http://themetapicture.com/points-of-view/
- 11y ago
- gozo 11y ago"Favoring fair outcome over having fair rules" Which essentially no one does? People favor fair outcome because they don't think the rules are, or can be, fair and often as a proxy for rules becoming more fair.
- humanrebar 11y agoI disagree. Rephrasing the tradeoff a little, Westerners are not willing to accept bad outcomes as a matter of course. It is probably objectively fair for individuals to stop wearing seatbelts or to "responsibly" pursue a meth habit, but those things are still illegal. The "fair" rules would probably be to let people do stupid things and accept their own consequences, but Western culture is not willing to let houses burn down because people didn't buy into the local fire department co-op.
- baddox 11y agoWhich are essentially two of the big branches of normative ethics: deontology and consequentialism.
- kiyoto 11y agoWhat surprised me a bit is that pg decided to use the word "bias" without any clarification, considering his background in computer science and AI. Anyway, I think pg's whole argument is rather moot because the three assumptions that he states are incredibly difficult to measure (Part of the reason why it is very difficult to argue for or against affirmative actions without coming across as "biased").
- gozo 11y agoUnfortunately I think this is a problem with many of his essays. They often present a very specific argument with reservations, which makes the argument very hard to disagree with since you have to argue relevance which requires a lot more insight. It's therefor taken as truth by the readers, even if the original argument don't support their conclusion. In general I think they should be seen as opinion pieces rather essays. I have a hard time seeing many of them being up to e.g. basic university standard.
- ericjang 11y agoYour comment makes sense; indeed, fairness in selection process does not imply that people aren't being discriminated against. For instance, the SAT is fair, but denies those with less opportunities a chance to get into top-tier schools. I can get on board with that. > We can't really think about whether rules are applied fairly or not, but whether the rules produce the outcomes that we want. This is a more explicit way of phrasing an attitude that I've noticed in my community (a liberal U.S. university). However, I don't think it's obvious that this is the right principle to uphold. I squirm with discomfort at the idea that we will only support "fairness" and empirical data to the extent that it is applicable to the outcome that we personally desire. This seems to imply that all evaluation metrics are "biased", until we can find a measure that selects equal representation across all demographics, regardless of the size of applicant pool or ability distribution among that pool. What outcomes, exactly, do we want? More representation of under-represented groups? How does this relate to the goal of maximizing return on the portfolio? What does this mean for people who want a "meritocracy" (if such a thing can exist)? Thoughts?
- Retric 11y agoIt's not easy to tell when bias shows up. Collage rankings might look like an unbiased formula, but it's selected so the 'top' schools end up being highly ranked instead of measuring useful things. Things like a high faculty to student ratio don't actually directly have much impact but it's the kind of stat easily gamed by 'top' schools so it's gotten some sort of mythic importance even if these people don't actually teach undergrad classes. You can find the same inherent bias in many walks of life. Many of the hurtles to becoming a Doctor have nothing to do with being a good Doctor there just there to ensure the right kinds of people get into and out of the program.
- jonahx 11y agoThis is a smart insight, although in fairness the article suggests, in its female founder example, that there was discrimination against women -- that given men and women of equal ability, men were more likely to be chosen. Condemning that inequality is different from affirming that selection should be altered to produce the outcomes people view as fair. One is saying, "Don't discriminate against Xs." The other is saying, "Not only can't you discriminate against them, you need to ensure that Xs have outcome Y. That is, you may be required to discriminate in their favor." The latter is a value, and your point about mathematics being irrelevant stands. But the former is a mathematical claim, and pg was making a mathematical claim, so the mathematical argument you replied to is relevant.
- Natsu 11y agoI think the grandparent example is pointing out that it will be hard to use this for sexism claims precisely because studies have shown that the variance in ability in male and female populations is, in fact, different. The studies I'm aware of show more men at both extremes of the bell curve. So more men at the very top and bottom in IQ measurements[1]. There's a genetic basis for this, as well: women have two copies of each chromosome, whereas men have X and Y, so there's no second copy to take over in men, leading to more extreme outcomes, whether good or bad. Now of course we ought to treat every group of people fairly, but we do need to examine our priors when doing so, especially when proposing ways to detect and punish people who may be thinking bad things, consciously or otherwise. [1] We may not know just what 'IQ' is, but we do know that tests of mental ability all correlate with each other, suggesting an underlying factor. This, in turn, can be correlated with many other things, like success (or lack thereof).
- forrestthewoods 11y agoBut the stated objective of the root article was failed. It concluded that First Round Capital is biased against females. There is insufficient data to support that claim! It might actually be that FRC is biased FOR females. But the process leading up to FRC was so biased against females that females are still at a net loss.
- 174676 11y agoSorry but your reasoning does not let pg off the hook. In his article he says that the way to determine bias is by measuring the performance of those that got through. With your excuse, all you have to do is measure the number of people that got through in a particular group relative to the other group.