4 ms·

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 mobili

• 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.