4 ms·

And if the appraisal value went down, would an article get written about it? Sorry but this N=1 is barely interesting and is nothing more than fodder for confi

And if the appraisal value went down, would an article get written about it? Sorry but this N=1 is barely interesting and is nothing more than fodder for confirmation bias. At best it's an indication of a research direction. I get that there's lots of evidence that Black people get discriminated against but putting anecdotes on a pedestal to drive clicks and outrage should be stopped.

mcphage 5y ago
> I get that there's lots of evidence that Black people get discriminated against but putting anecdotes on a pedestal to drive clicks and outrage should be stopped. So you understand that it happens, you just wish people would stop talking about it?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I wish people would talk about discrimination that actually happens (for which there's lots of evidence, and which people do talk about), instead of asserting that some N=1 thing which could have many explanations is in fact discrimination when there's no possible way they could know that to be true without having mind reading powers.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    You don’t need statistics to determine that someone has been discriminated against. Here is an example. My friends wife is Latina, and they were buying a house she goes to an open house at 3pm only to be told sorry we already sold. He swings by at 5pm after work, and they are happy to try and sell him the house. This is your classic N=1 sample size. But what can explain why one had a tour, and the other was lied to? You can invent a lot of things if you insist on giving them the benefit of the doubt, but the easiest explanation is discrimination.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      Not all N=1 examples should be discounted. Your example is much more believable because there's fairly good reason to suspect that the agent was lying on the basis of nothing more than the race or gender of the person (although there could be other explanations, such as the original buyer pulling out in the intervening time period?). In the case of the OP, there's no reason provided to suspect racism. Merely the correlation created by two or three data points. That's grossly insufficient for drawing such a link and it's also where the article crosses over into outrage stoking and irresponsible borderline misinfo more than anything.
      - true_religion 5y ago
        Well, home appraisals are pretty subjective but if the value of a house doubles then something must be causing it. Theoretically, appraisers are supposed to take into account the neighborhood, the value of the other houses near by, accessibility to work, culture, and shopping, etc. This is why an apartment built on top of a shopping center is worth more than that same apartment built 2 miles away on the other side of a public park. Now doing the above is quite a bit of work, so it's believable that appraisers simply use their experience and 'gut instinct' to determine the value of the neighborhood without actually going out and doing research. If their past experience tells them that houses in black neighborhoods sell for less, then they'll appraise a house with a black owner as valuable. This isn't racism per se by the appraiser, but it is however discrimination based on race. It's quite possible that a less lazy appraiser would have realized the neighborhood still rated X price instead of 2X price.
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        > but it is however discrimination based on race. It is discrimination in your hypothetical where you've presupposed that discrimination played a causal role in the appraisal price. There's no reason to suspect that discrimination played a role in this actual particular case, absent additional information. Incompetence of the final appraiser or any number of explanations could fit. You have to realize the layers of selection filters that are at work here: - Someone is on the lookout for evidence of discrimination - Someone reports a suspect case to a journalist - Journalist decides to write an article - HN user decides to post the article - HN article gets upvoted and gets to front page It's like a sales funnel. At each step, even if there isn't any discrimination, it's only the cases that are the most egregious (due to any number of causes, chance being a large one) that do not get pruned by the filters and therefore make it to the final step. Statistical variance can push through a large number of such articles. That's why this isn't evidence, not even suggestive evidence. We're ignorant of all the filters that led to this last step. The only way to address cases like this where there isn't explicit evidence of discrimination (e.g. chat logs, recording, whatever), is to precommit to a methodology and then go from there. This is what's been done to good effect with things like policing.
  - sshine 5y ago
    Aren’t most real discrimination incidents N=1? Assuming this person experiences many of these incidents that, by themselves, could be flukes. But combined the explanation of racism feels more real.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      If the appraisal price goes up 100 out of 200 times (and 100 articles get written by journalists) and goes down 100 out of 200 times (where articles don't get written), it isn't racism 100 times and not-racism the other 100 times. It's merely variance that gets attributed to racism post hoc. That's why in an example like this you need large N to establish what's actually going on. If you have a large N and the price goes up 150/200 times and down 50/200 times, then you have some evidence. Unless of course there's some extra information pertaining to the N=1 case that can help you make that determination with a small N. But such info wasn't provided in the article.
      - maxwell 5y ago
        The point is that appraisals appear not to be based on information, but on gut instinct. I've found no kind of federal regulation, no industry/trade/lobbying groups, only state-based certification bodies perfectly positioned for corruption and lack of checks on their work. This would seem to have implications for every U.S. property owner.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  Would you change your tune if the anecdotes were instead about whites murdered by blacks? Given a large enough population, you can prove anything with anecdotes.
  - etrabroline 5y ago
    Exactly, which is why an open and complete back and forth discussion of the data is required to establish the truth. People who have trained themselves to be allergic to data often do so because their prejudices and preconceptions do not survive a careful analysis.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    Would you change yours if the anecdotes were instead about whites murdered by whites?
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      Why would I? My 'tune' is that anecdotes can be misleading, and statistics is the way to get a better picture. The anecdotes you mention don't change that.
jakelazaroff 5y ago
The point of a newspaper is to inform its readers of current events. This is an article about a current event that seems particularly relevant for the IndyStar's Black home-owning and home-buying readership. Imagine an article about a recent mugging in the park. The point is to inform residents so they know to be wary, not necessarily to present study data on crime rates.

mcphage 5y ago

> I get that there's lots of evidence that Black people get discriminated against but putting anecdotes on a pedestal to drive clicks and outrage should be stopped. So you understand that it happens, you just wish people would stop talking about it?

fighterpilot 5y ago
I wish people would talk about discrimination that actually happens (for which there's lots of evidence, and which people do talk about), instead of asserting that some N=1 thing which could have many explanations is in fact discrimination when there's no possible way they could know that to be true without having mind reading powers.
- true_religion 5y ago
  You don’t need statistics to determine that someone has been discriminated against. Here is an example. My friends wife is Latina, and they were buying a house she goes to an open house at 3pm only to be told sorry we already sold. He swings by at 5pm after work, and they are happy to try and sell him the house. This is your classic N=1 sample size. But what can explain why one had a tour, and the other was lied to? You can invent a lot of things if you insist on giving them the benefit of the doubt, but the easiest explanation is discrimination.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Not all N=1 examples should be discounted. Your example is much more believable because there's fairly good reason to suspect that the agent was lying on the basis of nothing more than the race or gender of the person (although there could be other explanations, such as the original buyer pulling out in the intervening time period?). In the case of the OP, there's no reason provided to suspect racism. Merely the correlation created by two or three data points. That's grossly insufficient for drawing such a link and it's also where the article crosses over into outrage stoking and irresponsible borderline misinfo more than anything.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      Well, home appraisals are pretty subjective but if the value of a house doubles then something must be causing it. Theoretically, appraisers are supposed to take into account the neighborhood, the value of the other houses near by, accessibility to work, culture, and shopping, etc. This is why an apartment built on top of a shopping center is worth more than that same apartment built 2 miles away on the other side of a public park. Now doing the above is quite a bit of work, so it's believable that appraisers simply use their experience and 'gut instinct' to determine the value of the neighborhood without actually going out and doing research. If their past experience tells them that houses in black neighborhoods sell for less, then they'll appraise a house with a black owner as valuable. This isn't racism per se by the appraiser, but it is however discrimination based on race. It's quite possible that a less lazy appraiser would have realized the neighborhood still rated X price instead of 2X price.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        > but it is however discrimination based on race. It is discrimination in your hypothetical where you've presupposed that discrimination played a causal role in the appraisal price. There's no reason to suspect that discrimination played a role in this actual particular case, absent additional information. Incompetence of the final appraiser or any number of explanations could fit. You have to realize the layers of selection filters that are at work here: - Someone is on the lookout for evidence of discrimination - Someone reports a suspect case to a journalist - Journalist decides to write an article - HN user decides to post the article - HN article gets upvoted and gets to front page It's like a sales funnel. At each step, even if there isn't any discrimination, it's only the cases that are the most egregious (due to any number of causes, chance being a large one) that do not get pruned by the filters and therefore make it to the final step. Statistical variance can push through a large number of such articles. That's why this isn't evidence, not even suggestive evidence. We're ignorant of all the filters that led to this last step. The only way to address cases like this where there isn't explicit evidence of discrimination (e.g. chat logs, recording, whatever), is to precommit to a methodology and then go from there. This is what's been done to good effect with things like policing.
- sshine 5y ago
  Aren’t most real discrimination incidents N=1? Assuming this person experiences many of these incidents that, by themselves, could be flukes. But combined the explanation of racism feels more real.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    If the appraisal price goes up 100 out of 200 times (and 100 articles get written by journalists) and goes down 100 out of 200 times (where articles don't get written), it isn't racism 100 times and not-racism the other 100 times. It's merely variance that gets attributed to racism post hoc. That's why in an example like this you need large N to establish what's actually going on. If you have a large N and the price goes up 150/200 times and down 50/200 times, then you have some evidence. Unless of course there's some extra information pertaining to the N=1 case that can help you make that determination with a small N. But such info wasn't provided in the article.
    - maxwell 5y ago
      The point is that appraisals appear not to be based on information, but on gut instinct. I've found no kind of federal regulation, no industry/trade/lobbying groups, only state-based certification bodies perfectly positioned for corruption and lack of checks on their work. This would seem to have implications for every U.S. property owner.
MikeUt 5y ago
Would you change your tune if the anecdotes were instead about whites murdered by blacks? Given a large enough population, you can prove anything with anecdotes.
- etrabroline 5y ago
  Exactly, which is why an open and complete back and forth discussion of the data is required to establish the truth. People who have trained themselves to be allergic to data often do so because their prejudices and preconceptions do not survive a careful analysis.
- mcphage 5y ago
  Would you change yours if the anecdotes were instead about whites murdered by whites?
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    Why would I? My 'tune' is that anecdotes can be misleading, and statistics is the way to get a better picture. The anecdotes you mention don't change that.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

The point of a newspaper is to inform its readers of current events. This is an article about a current event that seems particularly relevant for the IndyStar's Black home-owning and home-buying readership. Imagine an article about a recent mugging in the park. The point is to inform residents so they know to be wary, not necessarily to present study data on crime rates.