6 ms·

I agree with the premise, but the problem is that it gets ethically, uh 'interesting', if you replace 'tall' with say, 'black', in your argument.

insert_coin 6y ago
I think it gets to the point. If blacks are for some reason (and I am not saying they are I do not know) less likely to pay back loans, then that is the problem that needs addressing. It might be a little painful to admit the huge racial divide but it is real and that is a problem we need to solve, taking the easy way out lying to ourselves only harms society in the long run and destroys the lives of people who cannot pay back the loans and end up in a huge debt cycle very difficult to get out of.
- hammock 6y ago
  So should we use the algorithms to charge different races different interest rates? Or should we not use them. And address the problems you mention? Because in the previous comment it sounded like they wanted to use them with applause.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    Using the algorithm is addressing the problems by not hiding them.
    - hammock 6y ago
      Should we legalize drunk driving, and address the problem by trying to solve alcoholism?
      - thegrimmest 6y ago
        I think this would be more aking to banning drinking and drunkenness altogether. I don't think that went so well the last time we tried it.
- dTal 6y ago
  And how do you propose we solve it? If there's a systematic financial disadvantage experienced by black people, possibly as a result of racism, then continuing to financially disenfranchise them will hardly help, will it? Access to liquid capital is pretty critical if you want to make money, isn't it? Judgement is notoriously self-fulfilling. The best way to keep someone poor is to treat them like a poor person. The best way to drive someone to crime is to treat them like a criminal. The best way to keep someone ignorant is to treat them like an idiot.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    And how did 'give everyone a home loan never mind if they can't afford it' worked out in 2008? Sometimes I do wonder if people who present the argument you just presented realize that that is exactly how we've been doing things, and it just keep making the problem bigger. Maybe I'm too much of a romantic, but I still harbor hope at some point they will realize it and begin to contemplate trying something different.
    - dTal 6y ago
      We're not talking about giving loans to people who can't afford it. We're talking about giving loans to black people. Nobody is arguing against fairly assessing an individual person's ability to pay off a loan - the issue at question is whether it's okay to use race as a statistical proxy for that.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  Of course we should address those problems as we identify them. But solutions may take years, even decades, to take root. What should lenders do in the mean time?
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    > What should lenders do in the mean time? They could start by not making the problem worse giving loans to people who can't pay them back.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    Lobby politicians to outlaw discriminatory risk assessment just to maintain balance of power in the market?
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  What if these predictions and others like them are self-fulfilling prophesies? Maybe someone is objectively less likely to pay back their loans, less likely to succeed in school and more likely to be arrested for a crime, but when those predictions end up forcing them to live in a worse neighborhood because they can't qualify for a loan in the better one, go to a worse school because they aren't expected to succeed in the better one and live with a higher police presence because they're more likely to be arrested, maybe those predictions aren't just predicting worse outcomes but are actually reinforcing them.
thegrimmest 6y ago
I don't think it gets ethically interesting, only politically, which isn't very interesting. Let's take a similar case: kill switches on cars. As you may know, not too long ago industry innovated a feature that allows remote disabling of a parked vehicle. This feature was used as an assurance of reposession and payment by automotive financing. They just stop the car from working on late payment. The result: lots of people who were previously unable to access automotive financing now could. This was a very good thing for everyone!
- thereisnospork 6y ago
  The politics do get ugly around skin color, but ethically it comes down to whether it is 'fair' to judge someone for something they have no control over[0] (genetic skin color, or genetic tallness.) Do we want a society where it is okay to charge red heads more for car insurance because they are red heads? Why should people have to bear the sins of others who happen to look like them? [0]And isn't intrinsic, e.g. people with big feet might pay more for shoes, but not for mortgages.
  - thegrimmest 6y ago
    Well, to talk about that we first have to agree on a definition of "fair". This doesn't seem practical in a society with such a diversity of opinions on the subject as ours. The more important question is to what degree is it ethical to impose your definition of "fair" on others? I would say that there is no ethical basis for the sort of extreme imposition that's currently the status quo. If some groups wants to charge redheads more, it's their choice. If someone else sees that as a market inefficiency, they can start their own shop where they don't do that. Who cares if you or I think it's "fair"? Edit: My original point was, the more nuanced we can be about whom we decide to give credit to, which these sorts of techniques provide, the less someone will find themselves lumped into a group in which they don't belong, and the more deserving people will have access to credit.

insert_coin 6y ago

I think it gets to the point. If blacks are for some reason (and I am not saying they are I do not know) less likely to pay back loans, then that is the problem that needs addressing. It might be a little painful to admit the huge racial divide but it is real and that is a problem we need to solve, taking the easy way out lying to ourselves only harms society in the long run and destroys the lives of people who cannot pay back the loans and end up in a huge debt cycle very difficult to get out of.

hammock 6y ago
So should we use the algorithms to charge different races different interest rates? Or should we not use them. And address the problems you mention? Because in the previous comment it sounded like they wanted to use them with applause.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  Using the algorithm is addressing the problems by not hiding them.
  - hammock 6y ago
    Should we legalize drunk driving, and address the problem by trying to solve alcoholism?
    - thegrimmest 6y ago
      I think this would be more aking to banning drinking and drunkenness altogether. I don't think that went so well the last time we tried it.
dTal 6y ago
And how do you propose we solve it? If there's a systematic financial disadvantage experienced by black people, possibly as a result of racism, then continuing to financially disenfranchise them will hardly help, will it? Access to liquid capital is pretty critical if you want to make money, isn't it? Judgement is notoriously self-fulfilling. The best way to keep someone poor is to treat them like a poor person. The best way to drive someone to crime is to treat them like a criminal. The best way to keep someone ignorant is to treat them like an idiot.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  And how did 'give everyone a home loan never mind if they can't afford it' worked out in 2008? Sometimes I do wonder if people who present the argument you just presented realize that that is exactly how we've been doing things, and it just keep making the problem bigger. Maybe I'm too much of a romantic, but I still harbor hope at some point they will realize it and begin to contemplate trying something different.
  - dTal 6y ago
    We're not talking about giving loans to people who can't afford it. We're talking about giving loans to black people. Nobody is arguing against fairly assessing an individual person's ability to pay off a loan - the issue at question is whether it's okay to use race as a statistical proxy for that.
warkdarrior 6y ago
Of course we should address those problems as we identify them. But solutions may take years, even decades, to take root. What should lenders do in the mean time?
- insert_coin 6y ago
  > What should lenders do in the mean time? They could start by not making the problem worse giving loans to people who can't pay them back.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Lobby politicians to outlaw discriminatory risk assessment just to maintain balance of power in the market?
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
What if these predictions and others like them are self-fulfilling prophesies? Maybe someone is objectively less likely to pay back their loans, less likely to succeed in school and more likely to be arrested for a crime, but when those predictions end up forcing them to live in a worse neighborhood because they can't qualify for a loan in the better one, go to a worse school because they aren't expected to succeed in the better one and live with a higher police presence because they're more likely to be arrested, maybe those predictions aren't just predicting worse outcomes but are actually reinforcing them.

thegrimmest 6y ago

I don't think it gets ethically interesting, only politically, which isn't very interesting. Let's take a similar case: kill switches on cars. As you may know, not too long ago industry innovated a feature that allows remote disabling of a parked vehicle. This feature was used as an assurance of reposession and payment by automotive financing. They just stop the car from working on late payment. The result: lots of people who were previously unable to access automotive financing now could. This was a very good thing for everyone!

thereisnospork 6y ago
The politics do get ugly around skin color, but ethically it comes down to whether it is 'fair' to judge someone for something they have no control over[0] (genetic skin color, or genetic tallness.) Do we want a society where it is okay to charge red heads more for car insurance because they are red heads? Why should people have to bear the sins of others who happen to look like them? [0]And isn't intrinsic, e.g. people with big feet might pay more for shoes, but not for mortgages.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  Well, to talk about that we first have to agree on a definition of "fair". This doesn't seem practical in a society with such a diversity of opinions on the subject as ours. The more important question is to what degree is it ethical to impose your definition of "fair" on others? I would say that there is no ethical basis for the sort of extreme imposition that's currently the status quo. If some groups wants to charge redheads more, it's their choice. If someone else sees that as a market inefficiency, they can start their own shop where they don't do that. Who cares if you or I think it's "fair"? Edit: My original point was, the more nuanced we can be about whom we decide to give credit to, which these sorts of techniques provide, the less someone will find themselves lumped into a group in which they don't belong, and the more deserving people will have access to credit.