4 ms·
> picking white man isn't even racist, it's rational in the Bayesian framework Only if you assume no inherent counter-bias, which is of course ridiculous. With
by lucideer 8y ago
> picking white man isn't even racist, it's rational in the Bayesian framework
Only if you assume no inherent counter-bias, which is of course ridiculous. Without affirmative action, blacks/women would have to have equal exam scores coupled with adverse conditions (statistically, on average) to the white/male candidate. By that logic, they would need to perform much better on aggregate.
- dandare 8y agoDo you assume the adverse conditions that affect black women (BW) will disappear once they are admitted to the school? If not, then it is still more rational to choose a white man (WM), who performed better in the exams and is not affected by adverse conditions during his study. Anyway, my original question was about fairness :).
- lucideer 8y ago> Do you assume the adverse conditions that affect black women (BW) will disappear once they are admitted to the school? I guess the hope is that increased participation will slowly reduce the severity of adversity, but whether that is effective I'm less sure of (I don't really believe it will ever disappear completely tbh). As for it being more rational to choose the person who contends with adversity on the assumption that the adversity never disappears (and therefore continues to impair), this only works on the assumption that affirmative action is a complete, perfect remedy to adversity: otherwise those contending with adversity must still overachieve to a certain degree to get the same positions (and therefore represent a potentially better rational choice).