> (and I don't think equivalently?) I think that's equivalent (assuming there are no efficacy losses of blinding, of course). If you've got the two subsets in

> (and I don't think equivalently?) I think that's equivalent (assuming there are no efficacy losses of blinding, of course). If you've got the two subsets in question, then they could make a choice with higher expected returns. If they can make a choice with higher expected returns, then there exist the subsets in question. (Let me skip the handwaving about continuity and measurability, please.) Those definitions are good because they even describe bias in a scenario where VC's are less accurate at identifying the ability of one group versus another, even if both had equal distributions of "true observable ability" and equal-sized applicant pools, and if the VC's decisions still resulted in equal proportions of each group getting funded.