4 ms·

I do, in fact. There is extensive research supporting the fact that many (though not all) are accurate. The typical racist stereotype is about twice as likely t

I do, in fact. There is extensive research supporting the fact that many (though not all) are accurate. The typical racist stereotype is about twice as likely to replicate as the typical sociology paper. Here are a couple of review articles to get you started: http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Jussim-et-al-unbearable-accuracy-of-stereotypes.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Jussim-et-al-... I didn't say that simply removing "racism" (by which I assume you mean disparate impact) is worth billions. I said doing so with the same accuracy as models which are "racist" is worth billions. Obviously you can do anything you want if you give up accuracy. Why do you believe they are false? Simply because it's socially unacceptable to think otherwise?

Houshalter 10y ago
I'm not sure whether or not the stereotype is true. The point is you are forced to acknowledge a pretty unpopular belief to defend this idea. And that the kind of people super concerned about disparate impact are usually not the kind of people that believe that. And I think that if you do acknowledge there are differences, the argument that it's unfair and wrong is much less strong. In any case the link you posted earlier suggested it could be explained by different rates of numeracy and literacy. Which sound like obvious proxies for IQ. If you gave people an IQ test, or at least literacy or numeracy test, this would probably eliminate any racist bias. > I said doing so with the same accuracy as models which are "racist" is worth billions. You necessarily lose some accuracy if you really think race is predictive. But you need not lose all of it. The current methods for removing bias just fuzz features that correlate with race. But there is a way to make sure a model doesn't learn to use features just as a proxy for race, but instead to predict how much they matter independent of race.
dang 10y ago
> Simply because it's socially unacceptable to think otherwise? Please stop insinuating this at people in HN comments. You've done it frequently, and it's rude. (That goes for "simply because of your mood affiliation?", etc., too.)
- Houshalter 10y ago
  As the person he was replying to, that statement wasn't rude in context. The belief being discussed really is socially unacceptable. My argument in fact, relied on that.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Dang, I'm really confused here. As Houshalter points out, he was deliberately making an argument based on social unacceptability of my beliefs. Searching for the phrase on hn.algolia.com, I've used the term 5 times on HN ever, never in the manner you imply. I'm also confused about my use of the term "mood affiliation". Searching my use of the term, most of the time I use it to refer to an external source with a data table/graph that supports a claim I make, but a tone which contradicts mine. For example, I might cite Piketty's book which claims the best way to grow the economy is to funnel money to the rich (this follows directly from his claims that rich people have higher r than non-rich people). What's the dang-approved way to point this out? In the rare occasion I use it to refer to a comment on HN, I'm usually asking whether I or another party are disagreeing merely at DH2 Tone (as per Paul Graham's levels of disagreement) or some higher level. What's the dang-approved way to ask this? http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html Let me know, I'll do exactly as you ask.
  - dang 10y ago
    > usually asking whether I or another party are disagreeing merely at DH2 Tone (as per Paul Graham's levels of disagreement) or some higher level. What's the dang-approved way to ask this? That seems like a good way to ask it right there. Possibly I misread you in this case (possibly even in every case!) but my sense is frequently that you are not asking someone a question so much as implying that they have no serious concern, only emotional baggage that they're irrationally unwilling to let go of. That's a form of derision, and it doesn't lead to better arguments. But if I've gotten you completely wrong, I'd be happy to see it and apologize.

Houshalter 10y ago

I'm not sure whether or not the stereotype is true. The point is you are forced to acknowledge a pretty unpopular belief to defend this idea. And that the kind of people super concerned about disparate impact are usually not the kind of people that believe that. And I think that if you do acknowledge there are differences, the argument that it's unfair and wrong is much less strong. In any case the link you posted earlier suggested it could be explained by different rates of numeracy and literacy. Which sound like obvious proxies for IQ. If you gave people an IQ test, or at least literacy or numeracy test, this would probably eliminate any racist bias. > I said doing so with the same accuracy as models which are "racist" is worth billions. You necessarily lose some accuracy if you really think race is predictive. But you need not lose all of it. The current methods for removing bias just fuzz features that correlate with race. But there is a way to make sure a model doesn't learn to use features just as a proxy for race, but instead to predict how much they matter independent of race.

dang 10y ago

> Simply because it's socially unacceptable to think otherwise? Please stop insinuating this at people in HN comments. You've done it frequently, and it's rude. (That goes for "simply because of your mood affiliation?", etc., too.)

Houshalter 10y ago
As the person he was replying to, that statement wasn't rude in context. The belief being discussed really is socially unacceptable. My argument in fact, relied on that.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Dang, I'm really confused here. As Houshalter points out, he was deliberately making an argument based on social unacceptability of my beliefs. Searching for the phrase on hn.algolia.com, I've used the term 5 times on HN ever, never in the manner you imply. I'm also confused about my use of the term "mood affiliation". Searching my use of the term, most of the time I use it to refer to an external source with a data table/graph that supports a claim I make, but a tone which contradicts mine. For example, I might cite Piketty's book which claims the best way to grow the economy is to funnel money to the rich (this follows directly from his claims that rich people have higher r than non-rich people). What's the dang-approved way to point this out? In the rare occasion I use it to refer to a comment on HN, I'm usually asking whether I or another party are disagreeing merely at DH2 Tone (as per Paul Graham's levels of disagreement) or some higher level. What's the dang-approved way to ask this? http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html Let me know, I'll do exactly as you ask.
- dang 10y ago
  > usually asking whether I or another party are disagreeing merely at DH2 Tone (as per Paul Graham's levels of disagreement) or some higher level. What's the dang-approved way to ask this? That seems like a good way to ask it right there. Possibly I misread you in this case (possibly even in every case!) but my sense is frequently that you are not asking someone a question so much as implying that they have no serious concern, only emotional baggage that they're irrationally unwilling to let go of. That's a form of derision, and it doesn't lead to better arguments. But if I've gotten you completely wrong, I'd be happy to see it and apologize.