4 ms·

The presence of bias is purely numerical and is allowed to thrive due to the lack of controls. Prestige is an unrelated red herring masking the very human beha

The presence of bias is purely numerical and is allowed to thrive due to the lack of controls. Prestige is an unrelated red herring masking the very human behaviors that account for social gravity in many walks of life. This is commonly referred to as implicit bias and is generally the most common cause of various forms of selection bias, including racial discrimination from both the majority and minorities alike.

Maursault 4y ago
> The presence of bias is purely numerical and is allowed to thrive due to the lack of controls. This statement is wonderfully self-contradictory. The study overwhelmingly proves the first part wrong. The presence of bias is numerical, certainly, but it is not purely numerical and must actually exist, which is acknowledged after the "and," in contradiction. > Prestige is an unrelated red herring masking the very human behaviors that account for social gravity in many walks of life. The study conclusively demonstrates that prestige most certainly is central to academic mobility. Also, biases are among the very human behaviors that account for social gravity. > This is commonly referred to as implicit bias Again, contradictory to immediately previous statement. If prestige is a red herring, it can't also be implicit bias unless the implicitly biased individual is intentionally misleading themselves, i.e. demonstrating cognitive dissonance. > and is generally the most common cause of various forms of selection bias, Prestige is highly unlikely to be the most common cause of selection bias. Systematic error is a far more common cause of selection bias. > including racial discrimination from both the majority and minorities alike. The surprising claim here is that prestige causes racism. But racism has many causes, the most common being that it is learned. In origin, I think it is probably caused by a combination of low intellect, lack of education, irrational fear of diversity, and narcissistic self-interest. And it should be noted that the idea of reverse racism has been employed wherever white supremacy is diminished. It is, IMO, neither legitimate nor valid conceptually and fundamentally a tu quoque fallacy.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  No, the study proves that bias, in this one case, demonstrates the Pareto Principle which is a purely numerical thing. Alignment to bias is essential to mobility anywhere that bias prevails irrespective of prestige. Prestige is the effect not the cause. The rest of your comment is built upon that cause/effect confusion.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > No, the study proves that bias, in this one case, demonstrates the Pareto Principle which is a purely numerical thing. This is a category error. The study nicely demonstrates the 80/20 rule, which itself is purely numerical, but the subjects, the academics, are real people, not numbers, nor is the demonstrated bias purely mathematical, it actually exists. The bias is real irregardless of demonstrating the Pareto Principle. The land ownership that Pareto originally demonstrated as following an 80/20 rule is not numerical, i.e. owning land is not numerical; it is land tenure. > Alignment to bias is essential to mobility anywhere that bias prevails irrespective of prestige. This is question begging, assuming the conclusion, aka petitio principii. > Prestige is the effect not the cause. The rest of your comment is built upon that cause/effect confusion. And this is a straw man and contradictory to your original statements. Unravelling your OP, it was your claim that prestige was the cause of something: >> Prestige... is generally the most common cause of... You write beautifully, your prose flows exceptionally smoothly, a talent I wish I had. I'm honestly envious. But the underlying argument is at times contradictory and wholly fallacious.

Maursault 4y ago

> The presence of bias is purely numerical and is allowed to thrive due to the lack of controls. This statement is wonderfully self-contradictory. The study overwhelmingly proves the first part wrong. The presence of bias is numerical, certainly, but it is not purely numerical and must actually exist, which is acknowledged after the "and," in contradiction. > Prestige is an unrelated red herring masking the very human behaviors that account for social gravity in many walks of life. The study conclusively demonstrates that prestige most certainly is central to academic mobility. Also, biases are among the very human behaviors that account for social gravity. > This is commonly referred to as implicit bias Again, contradictory to immediately previous statement. If prestige is a red herring, it can't also be implicit bias unless the implicitly biased individual is intentionally misleading themselves, i.e. demonstrating cognitive dissonance. > and is generally the most common cause of various forms of selection bias, Prestige is highly unlikely to be the most common cause of selection bias. Systematic error is a far more common cause of selection bias. > including racial discrimination from both the majority and minorities alike. The surprising claim here is that prestige causes racism. But racism has many causes, the most common being that it is learned. In origin, I think it is probably caused by a combination of low intellect, lack of education, irrational fear of diversity, and narcissistic self-interest. And it should be noted that the idea of reverse racism has been employed wherever white supremacy is diminished. It is, IMO, neither legitimate nor valid conceptually and fundamentally a tu quoque fallacy.

throwaway0asd 4y ago
No, the study proves that bias, in this one case, demonstrates the Pareto Principle which is a purely numerical thing. Alignment to bias is essential to mobility anywhere that bias prevails irrespective of prestige. Prestige is the effect not the cause. The rest of your comment is built upon that cause/effect confusion.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > No, the study proves that bias, in this one case, demonstrates the Pareto Principle which is a purely numerical thing. This is a category error. The study nicely demonstrates the 80/20 rule, which itself is purely numerical, but the subjects, the academics, are real people, not numbers, nor is the demonstrated bias purely mathematical, it actually exists. The bias is real irregardless of demonstrating the Pareto Principle. The land ownership that Pareto originally demonstrated as following an 80/20 rule is not numerical, i.e. owning land is not numerical; it is land tenure. > Alignment to bias is essential to mobility anywhere that bias prevails irrespective of prestige. This is question begging, assuming the conclusion, aka petitio principii. > Prestige is the effect not the cause. The rest of your comment is built upon that cause/effect confusion. And this is a straw man and contradictory to your original statements. Unravelling your OP, it was your claim that prestige was the cause of something: >> Prestige... is generally the most common cause of... You write beautifully, your prose flows exceptionally smoothly, a talent I wish I had. I'm honestly envious. But the underlying argument is at times contradictory and wholly fallacious.