62 ms·

> The idea is generally correct - bias in a decision process will be visible in post-decision distributions I find what's wrong with the idea more fundamental,

by Steko 11y ago

> The idea is generally correct - bias in a decision process will be visible in post-decision distributions I find what's wrong with the idea more fundamental, that it talks only about the 'selection process' but in fact bias that impacts success or failure can come at other points.

danieltillett 11y ago
This is really important. Lets say the whole VC ecosystem is biased against redheads (just to pick a random group). What would happen is the redheads would under perform other groups as they were discriminated against at each stage of the VC lifecycle. They would not show up as a group that over performing later. The only bias you can detect using Paul’s approach is bias that only applies at the initial stage and not later.
- escape_goat 11y ago
  Just to cross the beams of pedantry here for a moment, a widespread and well known --- if less than serious or systemic --- cultural/social bias against red haired people, probably first coming into public consciousness in North America due to the infamous South Park 'Ginger' episode, has in fact primed you to select "redheads" as a non-contentious example of a plausibly ethnic group that might be discriminated against, something that every red-haired person knows, although you apparently do not. This means that the choice is statistically insensitive and the social methodology is poor. Actually, choosing an identifiable group at random would be both socially and statistically unwise, as, following Patero distribution, there are vastly more minority/extreme minority distinguishable groups of people than there are majority/significant minority ones; this means, firstly, that any group randomly selected with equal biasing between all groups has a high probability of being subject to actual discrimination, mooting any social benefit of choosing a group at random; secondly, that the generalizable qualities of the group chosen would therefore have a distribution with very little deviation (if I'm using my terms correctly) and would be highly predictable, thereby obviating any possible statistical benefit of doing so.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    I'd prefer to imagine that it's because the majority of the HN readership reads Nature for their regular dose of science fiction: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a... Alternatively, I'd be OK imagining that it was subconsciously chosen here not at random, but because I used this reference for an example in the previous thread. Is South Park another journal worth reading? Are they open access?
- Steko 11y ago
  To take your example one step further, the redhead performance would be held up under pg's rubric as evidence that non-redheads are biased against and so redheads may fall into a vicious circle of deepening discrimination.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  It will be visible for the last biased actor. So begin testing the later rounds and work backwards.

by Steko 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

This is really important. Lets say the whole VC ecosystem is biased against redheads (just to pick a random group). What would happen is the redheads would under perform other groups as they were discriminated against at each stage of the VC lifecycle. They would not show up as a group that over performing later. The only bias you can detect using Paul’s approach is bias that only applies at the initial stage and not later.

escape_goat 11y ago
Just to cross the beams of pedantry here for a moment, a widespread and well known --- if less than serious or systemic --- cultural/social bias against red haired people, probably first coming into public consciousness in North America due to the infamous South Park 'Ginger' episode, has in fact primed you to select "redheads" as a non-contentious example of a plausibly ethnic group that might be discriminated against, something that every red-haired person knows, although you apparently do not. This means that the choice is statistically insensitive and the social methodology is poor. Actually, choosing an identifiable group at random would be both socially and statistically unwise, as, following Patero distribution, there are vastly more minority/extreme minority distinguishable groups of people than there are majority/significant minority ones; this means, firstly, that any group randomly selected with equal biasing between all groups has a high probability of being subject to actual discrimination, mooting any social benefit of choosing a group at random; secondly, that the generalizable qualities of the group chosen would therefore have a distribution with very little deviation (if I'm using my terms correctly) and would be highly predictable, thereby obviating any possible statistical benefit of doing so.
- nkurz 11y ago
  I'd prefer to imagine that it's because the majority of the HN readership reads Nature for their regular dose of science fiction: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a... Alternatively, I'd be OK imagining that it was subconsciously chosen here not at random, but because I used this reference for an example in the previous thread. Is South Park another journal worth reading? Are they open access?
Steko 11y ago
To take your example one step further, the redhead performance would be held up under pg's rubric as evidence that non-redheads are biased against and so redheads may fall into a vicious circle of deepening discrimination.
im3w1l 11y ago
It will be visible for the last biased actor. So begin testing the later rounds and work backwards.