4 ms·

A wise person once said this: "Which numbers do you disagree with? What do you think the more appropriate number would be? Change the numbers and rerun the scri

A wise person once said this: "Which numbers do you disagree with? What do you think the more appropriate number would be? Change the numbers and rerun the script, so you can see if your argument even matters." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6726852 What happened to that guy? I miss him. He made HN a better place. I didn't find black default rates at FICO=620, maybe you have sharper eyes than me. Feel free to change the numbers and redo the calculation. If you get something substantially different, lets discuss. [edit, in response to your edit: Asians to whites is an equivalent comparison and the result is the same. Asian borrowers subsidize white deadbeats.]

tptacek 10y ago
He discovered that a lot of the time, the people whose calm rational-seeming posts he was occasionally sticking up for were really just taking pleasure in needling HN with edgy race and gender baiting. It was a disappointment. The 620 default rate is on the very next page after the one you cited.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and post calculations showing it. If you are simply expressing your distaste for me, your emotions are noted.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Chris, this is another thing you do. I tried to word my questions carefully, so as not to dismissively score points off you on this buried thread nobody is paying attention to you. It was you that personalized this, with your "where did that person go" rhetoric. You asked a question --- orthogonal to my questions, which you really still haven't answered --- and then feigned offense when I answered it. If you didn't want to talk about "emotions", well, neither did I. Why'd you bring them up? Here is another way to read the questions I asked: "perhaps the answers to these questions explain why a normal reader might snag on the way you worded your previous comment and have to ask themselves whether they were taking race-troll bait". Not: "Chris should make different points", but rather, "here are some tools Chris might think about using to avoid giving the impression that he's race-trolling." So again, I'd ask: * Why go through extra effort to find a data point less favorable to black people than the one the document already presents? * If the point is that there are public policy debates to be had about fairness versus demographic blinding, why pick on black people in the first place? A comparison between Asians and whites makes the same point, without requiring you to ever write the words "deadbeat blacks".
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Since you seem to be attempting to discuss things honestly, I'll give you my reply. Answer 1: The document doesn't provide the number you claim it does, or if it does I still can't find it. Further, that number wouldn't substantively change my point and I'm pretty sure you know this. Answer 2: Mainly because we all know a major chunk of the actual debate is about black people, and I don't see a reason to obscure what we are really discussing. But I freely acknowledge that you can get a similar gap between whites and Asians, particularly around FICO=500. I'm very deliberately trying NOT to obscure the real issue, namely that you can't have both fairness and accuracy. You can't even have multiple kinds of fairness - pick one and you lose another. Unfortunately that's just how the math comes out. Also, I do believe that in the contemporary US Asian people are directly discriminated against more than anyone else. They are also the highest performing on a variety of common metrics (academics, income, financial responsibility) and this is primarily due to difficult to change traits (some combination of culture and biology). Just mentioning it explicitly if you thought I was trying to obscure this point.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        It's not my contention that the 600 number would substantively change your point. It's my contention that you went through extra effort to find a data point that put black people in a worse light. I was curious why you would have spent the effort to do that. Meanwhile, you were ostensibly making a level-headed argument about how there may be tradeoffs between discrimination and fairness; that to entirely eliminate discrimination we mathematically might be required to force some (say) ethnicities subsidize others. You could have made that point in any number of ways without using the words "deadbeat blacks" --- as I pointed out, the same point was available to you in a comparison between whites and Asians. As you can see from the thread, the objection wasn't to the underlying point you were trying to make, but to the way you chose to make it. Simply put: a reasonable reader could come to the conclusion that you were not only trying to make a point about a tension between non-discrimination and fairness/accuracy, but also trying to use that argument as a device to smuggle in an ethnic slur. I don't think you're a racist, by the way. I think something else is going on with you. Maybe I'm wrong. But as you are to statistics, I am to the oeuvre of 'yummyfajitas comments on Hacker News: they are an area of my expertise.

tptacek 10y ago

He discovered that a lot of the time, the people whose calm rational-seeming posts he was occasionally sticking up for were really just taking pleasure in needling HN with edgy race and gender baiting. It was a disappointment. The 620 default rate is on the very next page after the one you cited.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and post calculations showing it. If you are simply expressing your distaste for me, your emotions are noted.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Chris, this is another thing you do. I tried to word my questions carefully, so as not to dismissively score points off you on this buried thread nobody is paying attention to you. It was you that personalized this, with your "where did that person go" rhetoric. You asked a question --- orthogonal to my questions, which you really still haven't answered --- and then feigned offense when I answered it. If you didn't want to talk about "emotions", well, neither did I. Why'd you bring them up? Here is another way to read the questions I asked: "perhaps the answers to these questions explain why a normal reader might snag on the way you worded your previous comment and have to ask themselves whether they were taking race-troll bait". Not: "Chris should make different points", but rather, "here are some tools Chris might think about using to avoid giving the impression that he's race-trolling." So again, I'd ask: * Why go through extra effort to find a data point less favorable to black people than the one the document already presents? * If the point is that there are public policy debates to be had about fairness versus demographic blinding, why pick on black people in the first place? A comparison between Asians and whites makes the same point, without requiring you to ever write the words "deadbeat blacks".
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Since you seem to be attempting to discuss things honestly, I'll give you my reply. Answer 1: The document doesn't provide the number you claim it does, or if it does I still can't find it. Further, that number wouldn't substantively change my point and I'm pretty sure you know this. Answer 2: Mainly because we all know a major chunk of the actual debate is about black people, and I don't see a reason to obscure what we are really discussing. But I freely acknowledge that you can get a similar gap between whites and Asians, particularly around FICO=500. I'm very deliberately trying NOT to obscure the real issue, namely that you can't have both fairness and accuracy. You can't even have multiple kinds of fairness - pick one and you lose another. Unfortunately that's just how the math comes out. Also, I do believe that in the contemporary US Asian people are directly discriminated against more than anyone else. They are also the highest performing on a variety of common metrics (academics, income, financial responsibility) and this is primarily due to difficult to change traits (some combination of culture and biology). Just mentioning it explicitly if you thought I was trying to obscure this point.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      It's not my contention that the 600 number would substantively change your point. It's my contention that you went through extra effort to find a data point that put black people in a worse light. I was curious why you would have spent the effort to do that. Meanwhile, you were ostensibly making a level-headed argument about how there may be tradeoffs between discrimination and fairness; that to entirely eliminate discrimination we mathematically might be required to force some (say) ethnicities subsidize others. You could have made that point in any number of ways without using the words "deadbeat blacks" --- as I pointed out, the same point was available to you in a comparison between whites and Asians. As you can see from the thread, the objection wasn't to the underlying point you were trying to make, but to the way you chose to make it. Simply put: a reasonable reader could come to the conclusion that you were not only trying to make a point about a tension between non-discrimination and fairness/accuracy, but also trying to use that argument as a device to smuggle in an ethnic slur. I don't think you're a racist, by the way. I think something else is going on with you. Maybe I'm wrong. But as you are to statistics, I am to the oeuvre of 'yummyfajitas comments on Hacker News: they are an area of my expertise.