4 ms·

The entire point of the paper is to show that you can observe a statistical anomaly like wage disparity whenever you compare two different populations, even whe

The entire point of the paper is to show that you can observe a statistical anomaly like wage disparity whenever you compare two different populations, even when you essentially control for job effectiveness and isolate out any influence from malicious discrimination. The Uber case is being used to crystallize an example where there exists a bias in the results, and yet it is clearly not due to prejudice. It is illustrating the point that just because there is a pay-gap doesn't mean the source of the pay-gap is employers who don't properly compensate their female employees. Non-malicious systematic influences can easily cause such an effect. And yet you still have people in here wondering what we can do about this new problem, or how this just goes to show that it's really the SYSTEM that's biased, man. All I can do is shake my head at this point.

mlevental 9y ago
these two things are in such direct contradiction >systematic influences can easily cause such an effect >how this just goes to show that it's really the SYSTEM that's biased that i have no idea what you're really trying to say. > Non-malicious no one cares if it's malicious or benign. ask a black person whether they care about the intentions of those they're being racially profiled by (for example). it doesn't matter. what matters if systemic inequalities exist - and here is proof that they do.
- T2_t2 9y ago
  This is either some next level trolling, or really odd. > The entire point of the paper is to show that you can observe a statistical anomaly like wage disparity whenever you compare two different populations, even when you essentially control for job effectiveness and isolate out any influence from malicious discrimination.
  - mlevental 9y ago
    >statistical anomaly >systematic influences >bias in the results >SYSTEM that's biased you really don't see that who i'm responding to isn't at all consistent in what they're trying to say? the first 3 aren't mutually consistent and the fourth makes no sense when contextualized against those prior inconsistencies.

mlevental 9y ago

these two things are in such direct contradiction >systematic influences can easily cause such an effect >how this just goes to show that it's really the SYSTEM that's biased that i have no idea what you're really trying to say. > Non-malicious no one cares if it's malicious or benign. ask a black person whether they care about the intentions of those they're being racially profiled by (for example). it doesn't matter. what matters if systemic inequalities exist - and here is proof that they do.

T2_t2 9y ago
This is either some next level trolling, or really odd. > The entire point of the paper is to show that you can observe a statistical anomaly like wage disparity whenever you compare two different populations, even when you essentially control for job effectiveness and isolate out any influence from malicious discrimination.
- mlevental 9y ago
  >statistical anomaly >systematic influences >bias in the results >SYSTEM that's biased you really don't see that who i'm responding to isn't at all consistent in what they're trying to say? the first 3 aren't mutually consistent and the fourth makes no sense when contextualized against those prior inconsistencies.