4 ms·
This distinction seems relevant only if you target one person, which seems pretty rare. In reality you're going to use this metric on a pool of people, in whic
by sbov 10y ago
This distinction seems relevant only if you target one person, which seems pretty rare. In reality you're going to use this metric on a pool of people, in which case 65% of them would become an alcoholic in 5 years.
- imgabe 10y agoIt becomes a problem when it's used for profiling, such as "Don't hire that person, there's a 65% chance they'll be an alcoholic" or "send a drone to kill that person, there's an 80% chance they're a terrorist"
- sbov 10y agoI agree that it's a problem, but your distinction still seems generally pointless. If you have a company policy to not hire alcoholics and you reject 1,000 people based upon this metric then 65% would have been an alcoholic.
- imgabe 10y agoIt is a problem for the 350 non-alcoholics who are unable to get a job because the hiring manager doesn't understand statistics.