2 ms·

It's worse than that. You don't just need the information - you need a prevalence of individuating information as well as lack of other (non-relevant/ distracti

It's worse than that. You don't just need the information - you need a prevalence of individuating information as well as lack of other (non-relevant/ distracting) information. The panel at the blind audition does not give you any new information - it just removes some of it, and that seems to be enough to break bias. Making lots of money out of stock trading is rather easy in the presence of clear and relevant individuating information about all entities that are being traded. So is any decision making. That does not mean that in real life, "decision making" or "stock trading" are simple problems that we shouldn't be concerned with.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Yes, we should be concerned, especially as the outcomes other than differences have not been tested in that specific study. In other words, whether the prejudice was accurate or not and harmful ( to the goal of having a better orchestra) or not. The irony is that there is strong prejudice that every prejudice and bias is harmful and in a major way. This actually remains to be seen. To follow from your example, investors in many index funds do not have access to individuating information yet are making profits. Which means their perception of the market is at least somewhat accurate. But some investors who do have access to special information (and are not caught as doing insider trading) cash out much bigger. Often they do no better or worse too. You get too actually evaluate outcomes of each investment (or hiring) system.