4 ms·

Because now people start to get rejected for loans because of their race, and that’s wrong for many obvious reasons.

yamrzou 6y ago
I agree with you that it is generally wrong, i.e. that other factors should come first. But what if the data suggests it? For example if is known that if you lend to someone from race X, there is 80% chance he would not pay back. Would you not incorporate that factor into your decision?
- stanmancan 6y ago
  No. Find the other, non-racist data points that correlate.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    Why should correlations with ethnicity be dismissed? Epidemiological studies tell us some diseases disproportionally affect certain groups. Should doctors dismiss this knowledge as racist and refrain from screening patients in the affected groups because they might come off as racist?
    - lidHanteyk 6y ago
      Yes. We know, more specifically, that genes are to blame for diseases like hemochromatosis [0], sickle cell anemia [1], or Tay-Sachs [2]. We also know, from pedigree collapse [3], that humans broadly form one single race. Therefore we know that correlations with any definition of ethnicity or race are spurious, because those definitions must be socially constructed, because the gene pool simply does not have the shape that race realists claim that it does. Think in terms of contraposition. Sure, if race were real, then maybe it might make sense to talk about racial demographics. However, since race clearly is not real, any demographic correlations must be bogus. There is a much simpler explanation for why some skin colors seem socioeconomically advantaged: Because our society itself has bigoted opinions about skin colors, and has practices like redlining [4] which systematically oppress folks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_haemochromatosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_haemochromatosis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
    - stanmancan 6y ago
      Because at some point you have to be human about it and realize it’s not fair to evaluate and treat people based on things they can’t control, regardless of statistics.
ekianjo 6y ago
It should be pretty easy for anyone out there working on such algorithms to remove features that are race-related, or even not collecting such features in the first place. Treat people as individuals, not as representatives of some kind of meaningless tribe.
- yamrzou 6y ago
  > Treat people as individuals, not as representatives of some kind of meaningless tribe I dont't think that's how we make our day to day decisions. I usually treat people as individuals because I expect to be treated the same, but it doesn't make the "tribe" features meaningless. For example I would not live in given neighborhood if its tribe is knwon for [something bad] (this also applies to my own tribe). If I have an object of value, the tribe of a person would certainly be a factor to decide whether to entrust him with it or not. I'm sure a lot of people would do the same. It's just how probabilities are tranlated by the brain.

I agree with you that it is generally wrong, i.e. that other factors should come first. But what if the data suggests it? For example if is known that if you lend to someone from race X, there is 80% chance he would not pay back. Would you not incorporate that factor into your decision?

stanmancan 6y ago
No. Find the other, non-racist data points that correlate.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Why should correlations with ethnicity be dismissed? Epidemiological studies tell us some diseases disproportionally affect certain groups. Should doctors dismiss this knowledge as racist and refrain from screening patients in the affected groups because they might come off as racist?
  - lidHanteyk 6y ago
    Yes. We know, more specifically, that genes are to blame for diseases like hemochromatosis [0], sickle cell anemia [1], or Tay-Sachs [2]. We also know, from pedigree collapse [3], that humans broadly form one single race. Therefore we know that correlations with any definition of ethnicity or race are spurious, because those definitions must be socially constructed, because the gene pool simply does not have the shape that race realists claim that it does. Think in terms of contraposition. Sure, if race were real, then maybe it might make sense to talk about racial demographics. However, since race clearly is not real, any demographic correlations must be bogus. There is a much simpler explanation for why some skin colors seem socioeconomically advantaged: Because our society itself has bigoted opinions about skin colors, and has practices like redlining [4] which systematically oppress folks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_haemochromatosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_haemochromatosis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
  - stanmancan 6y ago
    Because at some point you have to be human about it and realize it’s not fair to evaluate and treat people based on things they can’t control, regardless of statistics.

ekianjo 6y ago

It should be pretty easy for anyone out there working on such algorithms to remove features that are race-related, or even not collecting such features in the first place. Treat people as individuals, not as representatives of some kind of meaningless tribe.

yamrzou 6y ago
> Treat people as individuals, not as representatives of some kind of meaningless tribe I dont't think that's how we make our day to day decisions. I usually treat people as individuals because I expect to be treated the same, but it doesn't make the "tribe" features meaningless. For example I would not live in given neighborhood if its tribe is knwon for [something bad] (this also applies to my own tribe). If I have an object of value, the tribe of a person would certainly be a factor to decide whether to entrust him with it or not. I'm sure a lot of people would do the same. It's just how probabilities are tranlated by the brain.