5 ms·

There are several independent meanings to the word bias: (1) statistical bias = a systematic gap between estimation and reality; (2) a prejudicial bias = an act

There are several independent meanings to the word bias: (1) statistical bias = a systematic gap between estimation and reality; (2) a prejudicial bias = an action taken against a person/group on immoral grounds; (3) partisan bias = a stake in the outcome. We expect judges to be unbiased in the (3) sense; businesses in the (2) sense; and scientific research in the (1) sense. I have seen even professors confuse these in quite horrific ways: claiming eg., esp. that (1) is just the same as (2, 3). This claim is common and very bad. Statistical bias has nothing to do with (2, 3). A system can be accurate (eg., an accurate record of historical crime) and still produce prejudice (eg., future over policing). And likewise, prejudice (2) is not simply "a once-true stereotype", ie., a human-equivalent of (1) (a compu sci professor claimed this at a public lecture -- quite insane). This leads to the view that "black people were more criminal" -- no, there are no such thing as "black people". Ie., the very concepts which prejudicial views partition reality into leads to datasets. Prejudice isnt a statistical effect, because statistics requires a measurement against a set of concepts (races, distances, etc.).

taneq 5y ago
In (2) the term 'immoral' is doing wizardly levels of work. These days in the context of 'social bias' the word 'bias' seems to mean 'difference between what happens and what I think is fair'.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Yes, deliberately so. Whether an action is prejudicial is not a statistical question, but an ethical one. The temperature of frozen water is likewise, not a statistical question, but a scientific one. Both questions "require a theory". Statistics itself is essentially pre/post-theoretical analysis -- theory has to be added to statistics. My use of "immoral" here is to sign-post that something is missing: an ethical theory. I have seen esteemed people try to reduce (2) to (1) -- you may as well do so with scientific questions, ie., eliminate all of chemistry in favour of just "how often ice melts at a given temperature". We know, of course, that we do not even have data for the whole range of actually knowable states of water -- because we have theories which describe them. (And without theory, we'd not even know what data to have collected.) Likewise, ethics is not a matter of outcomes being different whenever they are different. Ethics, like science, is a discrete constraint on theory-building -- not on data analysis.
  - taneq 5y ago
    > Whether an action is prejudicial is not a statistical question, but an ethical one. I think this is kind of what we're talking about, though, isn't it? Does "prejudicial" mean "having preconceptions about a person based on a few observed characteristics"? Or does it mean "assuming things I think are unfair about a person"? > My use of "immoral" here is to sign-post that something is missing: an ethical theory. If that was the intent then it worked for me.
azangru 5y ago
> This leads to the view that "black people were more criminal" -- no, there are no such thing as "black people". I am confused by this sentence. If there is no such thing as black people — and I can understand the reasoning that would lead to this conclusion, — then what is meant by the daily application of the word (black students, black Americans, black and brown community, etc.)
- mjburgess 5y ago
  There is such a thing as ancestry (coming from a similar historical geographical location) which leads to common features (eg., skin color). However, eg., if you take all people labelled "black" around the world, you'd find as different ancestries between them as-if you had taken "black and white". ie., the label "black" isn't a particular ancestry, nor even similar ones. "Black" is something invented somewhat recently (early modern period) which was initially a hypothesis about there being human subspecies and there being such a thing as a "black people". This hypothesis is false, and it really took knowing about evolution in the 19th C., and genetics in the 20th, to see why. Today then "black" is many things but perhaps best understood as a social caste which has been historically invented and reinforced by state institutions and latterly by culture. It's a bit like "working class" and a bit like "tall people" and a bit like "a nationality". In the sense its blends a political grouping (class) with a physical signifier (skin color), and it is something its people identify with ("I am X"). The key issue here is that there can be no "racial dataset", in that as a scientific hypothesis races don't exist -- and as an ethical constraint, we ought never act as-if they did. So we have these dual constraints on our theory-building and on our data collection: a scientific one, and an ethical one. These are not constraints that can ever be deduced (induced etc.) from a merely statistical analysis of data -- and thus (2) is not (1). (Consider, eg., that by the state creating and reinforcing a "black race" it induces commonalities between people labelled by that category. So if you actually collect data on "black vs. white" in any country, you will find "the categories you are looking for" -- precisely because youve induced these differences. It is in this sense statistics alone cannot tell you anything.)

taneq 5y ago

In (2) the term 'immoral' is doing wizardly levels of work. These days in the context of 'social bias' the word 'bias' seems to mean 'difference between what happens and what I think is fair'.

mjburgess 5y ago
Yes, deliberately so. Whether an action is prejudicial is not a statistical question, but an ethical one. The temperature of frozen water is likewise, not a statistical question, but a scientific one. Both questions "require a theory". Statistics itself is essentially pre/post-theoretical analysis -- theory has to be added to statistics. My use of "immoral" here is to sign-post that something is missing: an ethical theory. I have seen esteemed people try to reduce (2) to (1) -- you may as well do so with scientific questions, ie., eliminate all of chemistry in favour of just "how often ice melts at a given temperature". We know, of course, that we do not even have data for the whole range of actually knowable states of water -- because we have theories which describe them. (And without theory, we'd not even know what data to have collected.) Likewise, ethics is not a matter of outcomes being different whenever they are different. Ethics, like science, is a discrete constraint on theory-building -- not on data analysis.
- taneq 5y ago
  > Whether an action is prejudicial is not a statistical question, but an ethical one. I think this is kind of what we're talking about, though, isn't it? Does "prejudicial" mean "having preconceptions about a person based on a few observed characteristics"? Or does it mean "assuming things I think are unfair about a person"? > My use of "immoral" here is to sign-post that something is missing: an ethical theory. If that was the intent then it worked for me.

azangru 5y ago

> This leads to the view that "black people were more criminal" -- no, there are no such thing as "black people". I am confused by this sentence. If there is no such thing as black people — and I can understand the reasoning that would lead to this conclusion, — then what is meant by the daily application of the word (black students, black Americans, black and brown community, etc.)

mjburgess 5y ago
There is such a thing as ancestry (coming from a similar historical geographical location) which leads to common features (eg., skin color). However, eg., if you take all people labelled "black" around the world, you'd find as different ancestries between them as-if you had taken "black and white". ie., the label "black" isn't a particular ancestry, nor even similar ones. "Black" is something invented somewhat recently (early modern period) which was initially a hypothesis about there being human subspecies and there being such a thing as a "black people". This hypothesis is false, and it really took knowing about evolution in the 19th C., and genetics in the 20th, to see why. Today then "black" is many things but perhaps best understood as a social caste which has been historically invented and reinforced by state institutions and latterly by culture. It's a bit like "working class" and a bit like "tall people" and a bit like "a nationality". In the sense its blends a political grouping (class) with a physical signifier (skin color), and it is something its people identify with ("I am X"). The key issue here is that there can be no "racial dataset", in that as a scientific hypothesis races don't exist -- and as an ethical constraint, we ought never act as-if they did. So we have these dual constraints on our theory-building and on our data collection: a scientific one, and an ethical one. These are not constraints that can ever be deduced (induced etc.) from a merely statistical analysis of data -- and thus (2) is not (1). (Consider, eg., that by the state creating and reinforcing a "black race" it induces commonalities between people labelled by that category. So if you actually collect data on "black vs. white" in any country, you will find "the categories you are looking for" -- precisely because youve induced these differences. It is in this sense statistics alone cannot tell you anything.)