4 ms·

In some ways statistical modeling is trying to do with rigor and honesty about error what we seem to do quite naturally in daily life. That is we make decision

by mswen 11y ago

In some ways statistical modeling is trying to do with rigor and honesty about error what we seem to do quite naturally in daily life. That is we make decisions based on observed and/or shared and taught patterns. Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are the crude, less substantiated and often mean-spirited cousins of statistical models. Models are useful as long as their limitations are well understood, and humans use them with caution and compassion.

beccasanchez 11y ago
Modern statistics and statistically modelling are actually just confirming the validity of the majority of widely held stereotypes. As statistics in the academy become more common and advanced, more and more old stereotypes are just confirmed to be accurate. This is considered a crisis right now in social psychology, for instance, because there are almost no stereotypes that research has debunked. Again and again, research confirms stereotypes, and shows that humans in the aggregate are very good at creating accurate inferences. Stereotypes create injustice when they lead to prejudice--failing to give an individual a chance because they belong to a stereotyped group--but prejudice is wrong because outliers deserve a chance, not because stereotypes are incorrect. How can liberalism persist in the face of so much science that dismantles its most sacred beliefs?
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  >there are almost no stereotypes that research has debunked. Again and again, research confirms stereotypes, and shows that humans in the aggregate are very good at creating accurate inferences. I'm calling BS on this unless you give some specific examples. Not only this but confirming stereotypes does not mean that "humans in the aggregate are very good at creating accurate inferences." For example if (group) have the stereotype of being dumb that doesn't mean that others are good at making accurate inferences, it may just mean that others are good at denying (group) access to education and the same standard of living.
  - beccasanchez 11y ago
    The only catch is that when attributes of the stereotyped population change over time, the stereotype can lag behind the change for awhile, but the stereotypes eventually catch up to fit the new situation. All cultures stereotype and all cultures are quite good at it. Stereotypes are a pragmatic and democratic form of knowledge-making that all human cultures use[1]. This bullet proof research came out of various well-funded attempts to debunk stereotypes during the last 30 years. You know that science is working when sincere and hopeful attempts to debunk common knowledge end up confirming it very strongly! [1]:Heine, Steven J., Cultural Psychology. 3rd edition. W.W. Norton, 2016. ISBN: 9780393263985.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      You gave no specific examples so I'm still calling BS.
      - beccasanchez 11y ago
        "Calling BS" does not seem very substantive and it doesn't feel very civil either. I don't see who made you the authority here. There are too many examples to list, but the citation I gave contains dozens and dozens[1]. For instance, it turns out that North Asians really are better at math than people of European ancestry. Ashkenazi Jews really are better at learning languages and have larger vocabularies and superior grammatical understanding and usage. Cultural psychologists have tabulated voluminous data on all the ethnic stereotypes throughout the world--hundreds of stereotypes that different Asians have of each other for instance--and again and again they are found to be more true than not. The big mistake would be to then have prejudice--to prejudge an individual on the basis of their group affiliation. While it's a scientific fact that North Asians (Korea, China, Japan) are better at math than other populations, there are plenty of people in those groups that are worse than the global average. So it would be a mistake to assume that just because someone you meet is North Asian they are better than average at math. [1]: Heine, Steven J., Cultural Psychology. 3rd edition. W.W. Norton, 2016. ISBN: 9780393263985.
        11y ago

by mswen 11y ago

beccasanchez 11y ago

Modern statistics and statistically modelling are actually just confirming the validity of the majority of widely held stereotypes. As statistics in the academy become more common and advanced, more and more old stereotypes are just confirmed to be accurate. This is considered a crisis right now in social psychology, for instance, because there are almost no stereotypes that research has debunked. Again and again, research confirms stereotypes, and shows that humans in the aggregate are very good at creating accurate inferences. Stereotypes create injustice when they lead to prejudice--failing to give an individual a chance because they belong to a stereotyped group--but prejudice is wrong because outliers deserve a chance, not because stereotypes are incorrect. How can liberalism persist in the face of so much science that dismantles its most sacred beliefs?

nommm-nommm 11y ago
>there are almost no stereotypes that research has debunked. Again and again, research confirms stereotypes, and shows that humans in the aggregate are very good at creating accurate inferences. I'm calling BS on this unless you give some specific examples. Not only this but confirming stereotypes does not mean that "humans in the aggregate are very good at creating accurate inferences." For example if (group) have the stereotype of being dumb that doesn't mean that others are good at making accurate inferences, it may just mean that others are good at denying (group) access to education and the same standard of living.
- beccasanchez 11y ago
  The only catch is that when attributes of the stereotyped population change over time, the stereotype can lag behind the change for awhile, but the stereotypes eventually catch up to fit the new situation. All cultures stereotype and all cultures are quite good at it. Stereotypes are a pragmatic and democratic form of knowledge-making that all human cultures use[1]. This bullet proof research came out of various well-funded attempts to debunk stereotypes during the last 30 years. You know that science is working when sincere and hopeful attempts to debunk common knowledge end up confirming it very strongly! [1]:Heine, Steven J., Cultural Psychology. 3rd edition. W.W. Norton, 2016. ISBN: 9780393263985.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    You gave no specific examples so I'm still calling BS.
    - beccasanchez 11y ago
      "Calling BS" does not seem very substantive and it doesn't feel very civil either. I don't see who made you the authority here. There are too many examples to list, but the citation I gave contains dozens and dozens[1]. For instance, it turns out that North Asians really are better at math than people of European ancestry. Ashkenazi Jews really are better at learning languages and have larger vocabularies and superior grammatical understanding and usage. Cultural psychologists have tabulated voluminous data on all the ethnic stereotypes throughout the world--hundreds of stereotypes that different Asians have of each other for instance--and again and again they are found to be more true than not. The big mistake would be to then have prejudice--to prejudge an individual on the basis of their group affiliation. While it's a scientific fact that North Asians (Korea, China, Japan) are better at math than other populations, there are plenty of people in those groups that are worse than the global average. So it would be a mistake to assume that just because someone you meet is North Asian they are better than average at math. [1]: Heine, Steven J., Cultural Psychology. 3rd edition. W.W. Norton, 2016. ISBN: 9780393263985.
      - 11y ago