3 ms·

Consider the proposition of formalism - the idea that the stated public rules must, in fact, drive the expression of political power. I'm not familiar with thi

by nkurz 10y ago

Consider the proposition of formalism - the idea that the stated public rules must, in fact, drive the expression of political power. I'm not familiar with this usage of "formalism". I searched your site, but didn't find other mentions. Your gloss helps[1], but is there a reference you could point to? It's pretty clear that we don't live in a world governed by formalism. Are you saying that we don't live in such a world, or that we can safely assume that almost everyone realizes that we do not live in such a world? The first seems arguably true, the second strikes me as likely false. we claim to favor individual fairness (the proposition that individuals should be judged on their own individual merits) yet in practice we push for equality of outcomes (the proposition that processes should make decisions that do not vary across certain reference classes) Your use of "we" here seems forced. You[2] are the only clear party to this "we", but since you offer this example as a contradiction, presumably you do not actually put yourself into both categories. I suspect there is actually a division between these groups, with few claiming to belong to both. political power in the world strives to have proportional representation of different racial groups in college I'm not sure if I disagree with this, or if I missed the beginning of a counterfactual. I'd agree that some people claim to strive for proportional representation of races in college. Some of these think of this as a goal in and of itself, some assume it's a convenient metric for "equal opportunity" or a related goal, and others find it beneficial to claim to be for this without doing any striving at all. But to say that "political power in the world strives" either seems at odds with the evidence --- which I think shows that there are still racial disparities in college attendance and outcomes both in the US and the world --- or implies that "political power" is a relatively weak force that is prevented from having its way by something stronger. Or maybe you are defining power differently than I would. I tend to a simplified Foucauldian worldview[3], where "power" is strong and "truth" is weak. In my view, the best way to understand what "power" is striving for is to ignore everything it claims and look instead at how the world actually behaves. While not always accurate, I think the actual behavior of the world is usually a better starting point in determining what "power" is striving for than listening to its consciously crafted claims. When the world does not behave in a way that most benefits those with power, it's likely we have misidentified the true holder of power, or have mistaken its stated goals for its true goals. As such, algorithms are a huge threat to existing power structures, because they both implement formalism and they also reveal the lies behind our existing stated principles. I liked the distinction that the authors of the linked article make between "syntactic transparency" and "algorithmic accountability". They claim that the real harm comes from "opaque algorithms", and that "interpretability" is something that should receive more emphasis. I think this is compatible with your theory, since an opaque algorithm is less likely to reveal the divorce between what is espoused and what is practiced, and an easily interpretable one is more threatening. What do you think? [1] In your linked post, you said "Unlike me in this blog post, they didn't gloss over the statistical test - instead, the used the one that came built into R." I wasn't sure what you meant here. Do you maybe mean "they did gloss over" (made it superficially lustrous by omitting essential details) or maybe that "didn't gloss" (failed to define their terms as with a glossary)? [2] I don't know if it's clear to the audience that 'yummyfajitas' and the 'chrisstucchio' of the linked blog are related. I think they are the same person, but maybe I'm missing a subtle distinction of persona? [3] http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/ http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power...

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm using formalism as I defined it in my comment, but my thinking is strongly influenced by Moldbug. With high probability I'll defend his conclusions. https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formal... I'm saying that I consider it obvious that we don't live in a formalist world, but I don't think everyone agrees. As evidence that "we" refers to more than just me, consider this interaction with sp332 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12235207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12235207 He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. While not always accurate, I think the actual behavior of the world is usually a better starting point in determining what "power" is striving for than listening to its consciously crafted claims. I agree with this. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. I think opaque algorithms are, fundamentally, just ways of automating our thinking. We need to understand why opaque algorithms converge and then accept their conclusions. Interpretability is great, but it turns out that many things in the world simply do not have a simple human interpretation. I think it's truly a luddite idea that all decisions should be understandable to humans. If a computer can do a demonstrably better job, why should we insist that the computer be brought down to our level? Do you maybe mean "they did gloss over" (made it superficially lustrous by omitting essential details) or maybe that "didn't gloss" (failed to define their terms as with a glossary)? In my blog post I glossed over the statistical test. I ran linear regression on synthetic data to show the directional results of various possible worlds; e.g., a world where an input is biased, a world where an input is unbiased, etc. But I didn't actually run a hypothesis test to determine significance. ProPublica did, they just ignored the conclusion when they didn't like it. And yes, as my HN profile says, I am also the person behind chrisstucchio.com. I figured listing it there was disclosure enough.
- nkurz 10y ago
  Thanks for your patient response. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. That's arguably true regarding the apparent intent of the interventions in higher education in the US, but what about the actual outcomes? While we probably can't do a controlled experiment, assume multiple versions of you of different seses, races, and economic backgrounds, but starting life with equal "merit" on some scale. How would you price the options on the economic future of each "you"? Would an objective third party ever pay more at birth for a share of the lifetime wages of the "you" who is the apparent beneficiary of the government policies? Regardless of the apparent intent of the government to tilt the scales in favor of the historically disadvantaged, I think I'd always be betting on the "you" that looks, talks, and acts like the children of the politicians in power. I'd conclude from this that "power" does not actually prefer equal outcomes, and but that there are benefits from the appearance of preferring equal opportunity without actually taking actions that make it happen. I find this more compelling than assuming that "power" really does strive for equal outcomes but is too weak to achieve them, although I can't actually eliminate this possibility. He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. I also disagree with his logic, but I suspect you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion when you attempt to explain the mental process he's using. I think he is probably using a different definition of "merits" than you are. You are looking at the "finished" individual (the product of their upbringing, environment, education) whereas he seems to be reserving "merits" to describe the "blank slate" prior to these. I find your argument more compelling, but I don't think you are correctly characterizing his argument.

by nkurz 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I'm using formalism as I defined it in my comment, but my thinking is strongly influenced by Moldbug. With high probability I'll defend his conclusions. https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formal... I'm saying that I consider it obvious that we don't live in a formalist world, but I don't think everyone agrees. As evidence that "we" refers to more than just me, consider this interaction with sp332 in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12235207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12235207 He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. While not always accurate, I think the actual behavior of the world is usually a better starting point in determining what "power" is striving for than listening to its consciously crafted claims. I agree with this. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. I think opaque algorithms are, fundamentally, just ways of automating our thinking. We need to understand why opaque algorithms converge and then accept their conclusions. Interpretability is great, but it turns out that many things in the world simply do not have a simple human interpretation. I think it's truly a luddite idea that all decisions should be understandable to humans. If a computer can do a demonstrably better job, why should we insist that the computer be brought down to our level? Do you maybe mean "they did gloss over" (made it superficially lustrous by omitting essential details) or maybe that "didn't gloss" (failed to define their terms as with a glossary)? In my blog post I glossed over the statistical test. I ran linear regression on synthetic data to show the directional results of various possible worlds; e.g., a world where an input is biased, a world where an input is unbiased, etc. But I didn't actually run a hypothesis test to determine significance. ProPublica did, they just ignored the conclusion when they didn't like it. And yes, as my HN profile says, I am also the person behind chrisstucchio.com. I figured listing it there was disclosure enough.

nkurz 10y ago
Thanks for your patient response. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. That's arguably true regarding the apparent intent of the interventions in higher education in the US, but what about the actual outcomes? While we probably can't do a controlled experiment, assume multiple versions of you of different seses, races, and economic backgrounds, but starting life with equal "merit" on some scale. How would you price the options on the economic future of each "you"? Would an objective third party ever pay more at birth for a share of the lifetime wages of the "you" who is the apparent beneficiary of the government policies? Regardless of the apparent intent of the government to tilt the scales in favor of the historically disadvantaged, I think I'd always be betting on the "you" that looks, talks, and acts like the children of the politicians in power. I'd conclude from this that "power" does not actually prefer equal outcomes, and but that there are benefits from the appearance of preferring equal opportunity without actually taking actions that make it happen. I find this more compelling than assuming that "power" really does strive for equal outcomes but is too weak to achieve them, although I can't actually eliminate this possibility. He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. I also disagree with his logic, but I suspect you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion when you attempt to explain the mental process he's using. I think he is probably using a different definition of "merits" than you are. You are looking at the "finished" individual (the product of their upbringing, environment, education) whereas he seems to be reserving "merits" to describe the "blank slate" prior to these. I find your argument more compelling, but I don't think you are correctly characterizing his argument.