5 ms·

If 9 out of 10 authors from Laos are known to be corrupt, is it unethical and racist to be biased against authors from Laos?

coldtea 12y ago
I don't know. Are 9 out of 10 authors from Laos really known to be corrupt, or was it just an example used because we consider Laos a conventient place to pin third world stereotypes and first world snoberry on?
- integraton 12y ago
  If 9 out of 10 authors from Scottsdale, Arizona are known to be corrupt, is it unethical and racist to be biased against authors from Scottsdale, Arizona?
  - judk 12y ago
    An implication with a false premise is a boring sort of true statement.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It was an example, and I picked Laos because it is small. People get defensive if I name their country, instead of thinking rationally, and because Laos is small most people reading my comment will not be from Laos.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    There is a large Laotian community in the bay area, many in the computer industry and would be in the audience of hacker news. You should have picked Bhutan or maybe New Zealand, it's hard to offend kiwis (they are so laid back).
    - jrmurad 12y ago
      | should have picked... New Zealand, it's hard to offend kiwis (they are so laid back) Did you just do what you've been accusing others of? (Suggest a discriminated course of action based on a generalization of a certain nationality)
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        It's called sarcasm.
      - MikeCampbell 12y ago
        Not when you say 9/10ths of us are suspect we aren't. Unless you're talking about Aussie immigrants. :)
  - GoodIntentions 12y ago
    May I suggest Elbonia for such uses? http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-30/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-30/
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Good call, I will have to remember that.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
yes. Edit: isn't that obvious?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Discrimination is considered unethical when it is baseless. When it has merit, it is accepted as ethical. It is ethical to deny a loan to people with a terrible credit score, because there is very good reason to suspect people with a terrible credit score will default. It's still discrimination, but it is ethical because it is based in fact. Discrimination can have useful purpose. You can't expect people to expose themselves to a 9 out of 10 risk of being exploited by corrupt authors "in the name of equality".
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    You basically stated a definition of racism and then asked if that was racism. It doesn't really matter if evidence is involved or not. Racism is just stereotyping based on ethnicity or culture; as soon as you've generalized for good or bad, it is racism (yes, racial profiling is racism also).
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Ok, I'm not interested in arguing what is or isn't racism. So let's assume you're right. Ok, I'm a terrible racist of the worst kind. But what's your alternative? Is racism such a Great Evil we are willing to risk corruption of the entire global scientific knowledge by not applying extra scrutiny to "high-risk" papers? We should allow fraudulent or corrupt papers to freely pollute the community, just to make sure everyone feels like they are being treated equally? Frankly I care a lot more about good science than being politically correct. Besides, if your science is sound, why would you be upset if your paper undergoes extra scrutiny? Isn't that why you publish it, to be reviewed? Please note that I'm not suggesting "all PRC scientists should be excommunicated from the scientific community" or anything like that. But trust has to be earned.
      - deleted 12y ago
jrochkind1 12y ago
Without answering your question -- I'm not sure of the answer -- I think the more important question is: How exactly do you 'know' that (hypothetically) 9 out of 10 authors from Laos are corrupt? How have you demonstrated/discovered this? (hypothetically, I realize this is just a hypothetical example). How sure are you that your findings weren't accidentally effected by biases, effecting your research design or approach to accidentally confirm your biases?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Well, you could trivially compare "debunk rates". When I plotted percentage of debunked papers by country of origin, it was clear Elbonian papers are debunked 3x as often as anywhere else With that kind of a wide net, I would think the main sampling errors would be things like "Only studied physics papers" or "forgot to gather data from Journal Y". The findings could be impacted, certainly, but hopefully still trustworthy enough to be actionable?
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    There are things you can study. I'm not sure any of them would tell you "9 out of 10 authors from X are corrupt."

coldtea 12y ago

I don't know. Are 9 out of 10 authors from Laos really known to be corrupt, or was it just an example used because we consider Laos a conventient place to pin third world stereotypes and first world snoberry on?

integraton 12y ago
If 9 out of 10 authors from Scottsdale, Arizona are known to be corrupt, is it unethical and racist to be biased against authors from Scottsdale, Arizona?
- judk 12y ago
  An implication with a false premise is a boring sort of true statement.
sliverstorm 12y ago
It was an example, and I picked Laos because it is small. People get defensive if I name their country, instead of thinking rationally, and because Laos is small most people reading my comment will not be from Laos.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  There is a large Laotian community in the bay area, many in the computer industry and would be in the audience of hacker news. You should have picked Bhutan or maybe New Zealand, it's hard to offend kiwis (they are so laid back).
  - jrmurad 12y ago
    | should have picked... New Zealand, it's hard to offend kiwis (they are so laid back) Did you just do what you've been accusing others of? (Suggest a discriminated course of action based on a generalization of a certain nationality)
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      It's called sarcasm.
    - MikeCampbell 12y ago
      Not when you say 9/10ths of us are suspect we aren't. Unless you're talking about Aussie immigrants. :)
- GoodIntentions 12y ago
  May I suggest Elbonia for such uses? http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-30/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-10-30/
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Good call, I will have to remember that.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

yes. Edit: isn't that obvious?

sliverstorm 12y ago
Discrimination is considered unethical when it is baseless. When it has merit, it is accepted as ethical. It is ethical to deny a loan to people with a terrible credit score, because there is very good reason to suspect people with a terrible credit score will default. It's still discrimination, but it is ethical because it is based in fact. Discrimination can have useful purpose. You can't expect people to expose themselves to a 9 out of 10 risk of being exploited by corrupt authors "in the name of equality".
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  You basically stated a definition of racism and then asked if that was racism. It doesn't really matter if evidence is involved or not. Racism is just stereotyping based on ethnicity or culture; as soon as you've generalized for good or bad, it is racism (yes, racial profiling is racism also).
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Ok, I'm not interested in arguing what is or isn't racism. So let's assume you're right. Ok, I'm a terrible racist of the worst kind. But what's your alternative? Is racism such a Great Evil we are willing to risk corruption of the entire global scientific knowledge by not applying extra scrutiny to "high-risk" papers? We should allow fraudulent or corrupt papers to freely pollute the community, just to make sure everyone feels like they are being treated equally? Frankly I care a lot more about good science than being politically correct. Besides, if your science is sound, why would you be upset if your paper undergoes extra scrutiny? Isn't that why you publish it, to be reviewed? Please note that I'm not suggesting "all PRC scientists should be excommunicated from the scientific community" or anything like that. But trust has to be earned.
    - deleted 12y ago

jrochkind1 12y ago

Without answering your question -- I'm not sure of the answer -- I think the more important question is: How exactly do you 'know' that (hypothetically) 9 out of 10 authors from Laos are corrupt? How have you demonstrated/discovered this? (hypothetically, I realize this is just a hypothetical example). How sure are you that your findings weren't accidentally effected by biases, effecting your research design or approach to accidentally confirm your biases?

sliverstorm 12y ago
Well, you could trivially compare "debunk rates". When I plotted percentage of debunked papers by country of origin, it was clear Elbonian papers are debunked 3x as often as anywhere else With that kind of a wide net, I would think the main sampling errors would be things like "Only studied physics papers" or "forgot to gather data from Journal Y". The findings could be impacted, certainly, but hopefully still trustworthy enough to be actionable?
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  There are things you can study. I'm not sure any of them would tell you "9 out of 10 authors from X are corrupt."