> What does "independent of social conditioning" mean here? So we know, for example, that if you train a model to predict "criminality" based on face here in t

> What does "independent of social conditioning" mean here? So we know, for example, that if you train a model to predict "criminality" based on face here in the US, it will find that race is a strong predictor of criminality. The first problem with this specific example is that the data is biased: certain communities are overpoliced. We know, for example, that black and white people use marijuana at around the same rate, but that black people are more likely to be arrested for use. So they'll be more likely to be represented in a dataset of "criminals" even if they aren't actually more criminal. So that's one social factor. But let's pretend that we can construct a socially untainted dataset that represents the true underlying crime rate, we correlate it with face images, and the racial disparity still exists. I want to reiterate that we're well off into the world of fantasy here, but for demonstration purposes. There are generally 3 conclusions you can draw from a correlation like this: A directly causes B, B directly causes A, or something else more complex is at play. It's unlikely for facial structure changes to directly cause criminality, and unless you're Pinocchio, criminal behavior isn't going to directly cause changes in your face. So what more complex thing is at play? Well one answer is genes. It could be that the genes that make someone darker also make them more naturally predisposed to violence. That is, some factor C directly causes both A and B. Or it could be even more complex, for example that socially, people who exhibit black skin are more likely to be placed in conditions that breed criminal behavior[0]. Since economic and social status are heritable, and so is skin color, this seems reasonable to conclude, and there's lots of other evidence that this is the case. But if that's the case, then looking at a picture of a face doesn't actually have predictive power. At best it just recognizes that your average black person is likely to have been raised in a situation where they were more likely to commit a crime. It doesn't have any predictive power about a black person who wasn't raised in those conditions. So by independent of social condition, what I mean is that such a model isn't useful unless you ascribe to the belief that the genes that cause facial structures are correlated with the genes that cause criminal behavior (which presupposes that those genes exist). Otherwise you aren't actually looking at even a direct correlation and in fact it's very likely that if you divide your subpopulation up in smart ways, you'll find that there are groups against which you are unfairly biased. Just because the social signifiers in the study we're looking at aren't as obvious to you or I as skin tone doesn't mean they aren't there, and again that presumes the data is good, which we know it isn't. > Can you give some examples of social attributes that arise independent of social conditioning? I don't know that I fully explained this above, so let's create another fantasy world to explain this more concretely. Let's agree that murder is bad. This is solely a social agreement, but we decide on it based on ethical beliefs. Imagine that in this fantasy world there are genes that cause one to occasionally enter a bloodlust that forces one to go on a relatively uncontrollable killing rampage. Or for a more direct fantasy example, turn into a werewolf that then goes into a relatively uncontrollable killing rampage. Or be an Orc which is "naturally" evil (this is actually a relatively common fantasy trope, huh). This genetic marker would imply a genetic predisposition to criminal behavior, despite any social conditioning. Compare this to a relatively normal human child who is trained from a young age that they are "no one", a part of a greater movement that requires assassinating the wrong people, and that this assassination is sometimes necessary for the greater good. Both are more likely than your average person to commit a crime, but one was conditioned to this socially while one was genetically predisposed. If this cult holds onto family lines, there will be similarities between cult members, but people who escape the cult or who were never a part of it might be unjustly thought to be criminal, solely because they resembled the cult. To jump back to the original statement, this means that if you set up a confusion matrix that includes "family of cult members" as a category, your model will perform badly and discriminate negatively agains them. You can see why this might cause huge issues like, for example, causing the justice system to chase or harass people who are related to criminals. Hopefully that explains. It's essentially a correlation vs. causation issue. [0]: I should note here that this is true whether you ascribe to the belief that "black culture" encourages/celebrates criminality, or the belief that "white supremacist and social structures" push black people into situations where they can't avoid crime.