5 ms·
Disparate outcomes do not imply disparate treatment
by kolbe 2y ago
Disparate outcomes do not imply disparate treatment
- BadHumans 2y ago> As with prior layoffs When all of your outcomes result in same treatment of the same group of individuals, there just might be a little fire to that smoke.
- kolbe 2y ago"Might" is a delightfully cop out word. Anything "might" be true.
- toss1 2y agoDisparate outcomes do not conclusively determine disparate treatment Disparate outcomes most definitely imply disparate treatment, at least enough to merit further investigation
- kolbe 2y agoSo how does this work? Asian Americans are vastly over represented relative to their population in higher education. This "implies" they've been receiving special treatment or favoritism?
- toss1 2y agoPretty much; might or might not; "suggest" may be a better word. It means there may be something to check into. What OTHER advantages, disadvantages, preparation levels, etc. are working for and/or against that group? Can those factors account for the differential? What is the groups' actual relative performance in the situation (i.e., do they tend to perform at|above|below the level to which they have risen, e.g., legacy college admissions with "Gentleman's Cs" are performing below)? And so forth. The point is that statistical disparities are not conclusive, but are most often indicative of some kind of structural favoritism, like smoke to fire. Not always, and you can always cherry-pick some counter-example, but the default assumption is that it merits investigation.
- kolbe 2y ago[flagged]
- toss1 2y ago[flagged]
- kolbe 2y agoFWIW, I didn't flag you. Just wanted to say you're accusing me of a straw man, but when I give a particular example that is a concrete example within a general statement, that's not a straw man. Between the two of us, I am looking at a well-researched and widely understood example of why a disparate outcome doesn't actually imply what we would intuitively think, while you are talking about metaphors of smoke and "taking closer looks" as if those justify angrily jumping to conclusions. If you have some sort of correlation coefficient to justify jumping to conclusions even mildly, I'd appreciate that contribution. But "something isn't equal" isn't even necessarily reason to look into something further, let alone a reason to presume the cause. Nothing is ever equal. Equality is a fictional concept, and doing deep dives into every example of it would exhaust our collective resources.