5 ms·

The bias started out with a good intention - "all people should have the same rights and opportunities". But the official, carefully constructed non-offensive

The bias started out with a good intention - "all people should have the same rights and opportunities". But the official, carefully constructed non-offensive party line reasoning behind it in the US seems to be something like "all people of all types ever are the same", which is just not true. Any one deviating from the party line is automatically labelled bigot, and anyone defending these people is lumped into the same bucket. Its NOT wrong to make generalizations about people. Our brains are pattern finding machines - we generalize all the time. It IS wrong to use them as justification to treat certain people differently - because a statistic computed on a population of millions doesn't really tell you anything about a specific person. So it makes sense to discard the generalization prior - i.e be unbiased and not view someone through stereotypes. Its a hard problem - tolerating honesty but not bigotry, someones right to be offended vs. the offenders right to speak their mind etc etc. But right now US culture is very biased towards not being offensive, at the cost of truth - at the least, this kind of attitude does not belong in research. Research needs to be about truth.

gleb 11y ago
Btw, in areas where it's OK to apply math (like medicine or spam filtering) we have a science which tells us how to determine posterior probability given prior and new information. It's called statistics and Bayes rule.
- bonobo3000 11y ago
  Hahaha yes, absolutely :) This is another thing that makes stereotypes tricky - it takes a little bit of statistical insight to see how they can be both right in some sense but completely wrong in the other, but statistics is very unintuitive, and math doesn't grab headlines. So that kind of argument is difficult to use with non-nerds, but ultimately i think its the only accurate one. That brings up another good point in that its really a perfect opportunity for media outlets that like to turn controversy into clicks. Its very controversial and very broadly applicable.
- j_m_b 11y ago
  Stats can also be used to obfuscate and mislead. P-hacking (mentioned in the article) is the most well known.
- jeremyjh 11y ago
  A challenge - I'm sure you know - is that a study found that doctors seldom apply Bayes theorem more accurately than they'd do by rolling dice. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/17/statistical-literacy-among-doctors-now-lower-than-chance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/17/statistical-literacy-am...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The more academic paper I linked to (by the author being discussed in this article) suggests that people use stereotypes a lot like a Bayesian prior. Once they have knowledge about a specific individual, that knowledge usually drowns out the stereotype. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...
  - gleb 11y ago
    The part that I found particularly interesting is towards the end of this article. That using stereotypes [as priors] makes people more accurate. And ignoring stereotypes makes people less accurate.
rustynails 11y ago
I do my best to avoid generalisations about people, unless they consciously choose to label themselves (eg. KKK is racist, feminist is sexist, etc). There is a difference between looking for patterns in people and stereotypes. For example, walking down a dark lane at night in Kings Cross (Australia) is dangerous with any person you meet. Seeing a black person in Pitt St is unlikely to be dangerous. A person wearing tracksuit pants and a backward cap walking in an agitated manner may represent a threat. A woman in a dress might or might not be a CEO. Now, how does a stereotype of skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc help anyone? I agree that the US is particularly biased and that truth is the victim. I went to code.org with my young son who asked "are boys not welcome?" The link on the title page said "why girls should be in IT". Political Correctness - another word for prejudice. The idiot who approved it didn't give a crap about the message to young boys, they're just a casualty of war.
seventytwo 11y ago
I agree. This entire issue is rooted in different axioms about what should be "equal". I hear suggestions and implications that many believe equality of outcome is the goal for which we should be striving - the basic assumption here being that all people are inherently equal, and if equal outcomes are not achieved, then it must be a systemic issue causing the inequality of outcome. The problem is the axiom of "all people of all types ever are the same", as you pointed out. It's false. Our inherent advantages and disadvantages are as varied multi-dimensional as human individuality itself. A proper axiom from which to base a philosophy upon would be that every individual is inherently different, with advantages and disadvantages determined by nature. Given this truism, it can only be asked of a human society that all these different people be provided an equal playing field. This playing field does not guarantee equal outcome and does not provide preference - It does not aid the inherently disadvantaged, nor does it cripple the inherently advantaged. The trick, of course, is in implementing a "level playing field" given some of the generational feedback loops which exist. That the wealthy tend to stay wealthy and the poor tend to stay poor, generation after generation, shows that there is some "unlevel" part of the American playing field. What we should expect in an ideal "level playing field" would be that children born in any socioeconomic situation would have an equal likelihood of ending up in any other socioeconomic situation as their outcome. Perhaps slightly bias this towards moving "up" the economic ladder to keep pace with the ideal of incentive and capitalism, but the point remains. Many of the liberal bias coming out of the soft sciences would be sharply curtailed if we started a discussion about the fundamental axioms. A fair society is one that acknowledges the inherent differences in humanity and still provides equal rights for all. With this said, I really don't think the US has done a bad job at creating something close.
randomname2 11y ago
This may have to do with the lack of political diversity in the social sciences -- prominent social scientists are unanimously left-leaning. Jonathan Haidt (who is himself left-wing) wrote an interesting paper on this: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-...
- x5n1 11y ago
  It's not about truth it's about self-esteem.
vinhboy 11y ago
I think this is one of the reasons why its so hard to address racial inequality in America. No one one wants to specifically categorize certain problems as being endemic to one racial group because it sounds racist. But I feel like that would make tackling the problem a lot easier, therefore benefiting that group.
- cgriswald 11y ago
  We categorize problems endemic to particular racial groups all the time. For instance, blacks, hispanics, and poor whites are largely over-represented in the prison population. The reasons for this are many, but are largely endemic to the system, rather than being endemic to these groups. Inequality of education and opportunity is, in my opinion, the primary factor; followed closely by the War on Drugs. But other factors include inequality in how law enforcement treats suspects in these groups and inequality in legal defense. Solutions to some of this are fairly straightforward. Educational opportunities should be improved for the underserved. Real legal defense should be provided for those who cannot afford it.* Law enforcement needs to be overhauled and demilitarized. The problem is there is no political will among people who matter to make these changes. I think maybe you are talking about cultural issues of particular groups that contribute to problems. There is the concept of "acting white" which does hold down certain ethnic groups in some areas, particularly education. I do think those problems should be addressed, but I also think they are addressed, just not at city, state, or national level. I see these problems addressed largely in support groups within and without communities. My college, and many universities have programs tailored to provide help for underserved groups and addressing these kind of issues falls under their aegis. (A matter of pride, the program developed at my college served as the template for all such programs in colleges and universities across California.) But even so, I think addressing the larger issues will not only solve many of the issues that are specific to particular groups, it will also provide the moral grounds to avoid accusations of racism when addressing those issues directly. *In my county, the public defenders are private. They are paid per case and are therefore incentivized to take on as many cases as possible. The quickest way to deal with a case is to encourage their client to take a plea deal regardless of the merits of their defense. In other counties, the public defenders are holding public offices and are incentivized, therefore, to win cases to further their careers. However, often these defenders are given case loads so large they can literally only spend seconds or minutes on any individual case.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

gleb 11y ago

Btw, in areas where it's OK to apply math (like medicine or spam filtering) we have a science which tells us how to determine posterior probability given prior and new information. It's called statistics and Bayes rule.

bonobo3000 11y ago
Hahaha yes, absolutely :) This is another thing that makes stereotypes tricky - it takes a little bit of statistical insight to see how they can be both right in some sense but completely wrong in the other, but statistics is very unintuitive, and math doesn't grab headlines. So that kind of argument is difficult to use with non-nerds, but ultimately i think its the only accurate one. That brings up another good point in that its really a perfect opportunity for media outlets that like to turn controversy into clicks. Its very controversial and very broadly applicable.
j_m_b 11y ago
Stats can also be used to obfuscate and mislead. P-hacking (mentioned in the article) is the most well known.
jeremyjh 11y ago
A challenge - I'm sure you know - is that a study found that doctors seldom apply Bayes theorem more accurately than they'd do by rolling dice. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/17/statistical-literacy-among-doctors-now-lower-than-chance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/17/statistical-literacy-am...
yummyfajitas 11y ago
The more academic paper I linked to (by the author being discussed in this article) suggests that people use stereotypes a lot like a Bayesian prior. Once they have knowledge about a specific individual, that knowledge usually drowns out the stereotype. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...
- gleb 11y ago
  The part that I found particularly interesting is towards the end of this article. That using stereotypes [as priors] makes people more accurate. And ignoring stereotypes makes people less accurate.

rustynails 11y ago

I do my best to avoid generalisations about people, unless they consciously choose to label themselves (eg. KKK is racist, feminist is sexist, etc). There is a difference between looking for patterns in people and stereotypes. For example, walking down a dark lane at night in Kings Cross (Australia) is dangerous with any person you meet. Seeing a black person in Pitt St is unlikely to be dangerous. A person wearing tracksuit pants and a backward cap walking in an agitated manner may represent a threat. A woman in a dress might or might not be a CEO. Now, how does a stereotype of skin colour, gender, sexuality, etc help anyone? I agree that the US is particularly biased and that truth is the victim. I went to code.org with my young son who asked "are boys not welcome?" The link on the title page said "why girls should be in IT". Political Correctness - another word for prejudice. The idiot who approved it didn't give a crap about the message to young boys, they're just a casualty of war.

seventytwo 11y ago

I agree. This entire issue is rooted in different axioms about what should be "equal". I hear suggestions and implications that many believe equality of outcome is the goal for which we should be striving - the basic assumption here being that all people are inherently equal, and if equal outcomes are not achieved, then it must be a systemic issue causing the inequality of outcome. The problem is the axiom of "all people of all types ever are the same", as you pointed out. It's false. Our inherent advantages and disadvantages are as varied multi-dimensional as human individuality itself. A proper axiom from which to base a philosophy upon would be that every individual is inherently different, with advantages and disadvantages determined by nature. Given this truism, it can only be asked of a human society that all these different people be provided an equal playing field. This playing field does not guarantee equal outcome and does not provide preference - It does not aid the inherently disadvantaged, nor does it cripple the inherently advantaged. The trick, of course, is in implementing a "level playing field" given some of the generational feedback loops which exist. That the wealthy tend to stay wealthy and the poor tend to stay poor, generation after generation, shows that there is some "unlevel" part of the American playing field. What we should expect in an ideal "level playing field" would be that children born in any socioeconomic situation would have an equal likelihood of ending up in any other socioeconomic situation as their outcome. Perhaps slightly bias this towards moving "up" the economic ladder to keep pace with the ideal of incentive and capitalism, but the point remains. Many of the liberal bias coming out of the soft sciences would be sharply curtailed if we started a discussion about the fundamental axioms. A fair society is one that acknowledges the inherent differences in humanity and still provides equal rights for all. With this said, I really don't think the US has done a bad job at creating something close.

randomname2 11y ago

This may have to do with the lack of political diversity in the social sciences -- prominent social scientists are unanimously left-leaning. Jonathan Haidt (who is himself left-wing) wrote an interesting paper on this: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-...

x5n1 11y ago
It's not about truth it's about self-esteem.

vinhboy 11y ago

I think this is one of the reasons why its so hard to address racial inequality in America. No one one wants to specifically categorize certain problems as being endemic to one racial group because it sounds racist. But I feel like that would make tackling the problem a lot easier, therefore benefiting that group.

cgriswald 11y ago
We categorize problems endemic to particular racial groups all the time. For instance, blacks, hispanics, and poor whites are largely over-represented in the prison population. The reasons for this are many, but are largely endemic to the system, rather than being endemic to these groups. Inequality of education and opportunity is, in my opinion, the primary factor; followed closely by the War on Drugs. But other factors include inequality in how law enforcement treats suspects in these groups and inequality in legal defense. Solutions to some of this are fairly straightforward. Educational opportunities should be improved for the underserved. Real legal defense should be provided for those who cannot afford it.* Law enforcement needs to be overhauled and demilitarized. The problem is there is no political will among people who matter to make these changes. I think maybe you are talking about cultural issues of particular groups that contribute to problems. There is the concept of "acting white" which does hold down certain ethnic groups in some areas, particularly education. I do think those problems should be addressed, but I also think they are addressed, just not at city, state, or national level. I see these problems addressed largely in support groups within and without communities. My college, and many universities have programs tailored to provide help for underserved groups and addressing these kind of issues falls under their aegis. (A matter of pride, the program developed at my college served as the template for all such programs in colleges and universities across California.) But even so, I think addressing the larger issues will not only solve many of the issues that are specific to particular groups, it will also provide the moral grounds to avoid accusations of racism when addressing those issues directly. *In my county, the public defenders are private. They are paid per case and are therefore incentivized to take on as many cases as possible. The quickest way to deal with a case is to encourage their client to take a plea deal regardless of the merits of their defense. In other counties, the public defenders are holding public offices and are incentivized, therefore, to win cases to further their careers. However, often these defenders are given case loads so large they can literally only spend seconds or minutes on any individual case.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]