Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Way to Detect Bias

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 224 posts

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#111

Post by 1457389 »

bjwbell wrote: post #83
eoi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article defines bias as follows: > Want to know if the selection process was biased against some type of applicant? Check whether they outperform the others. This is not just a heuristic for detecting bias. It's what bias means. Under that definition, you have been biased against A. [edit: on reflection I see this as a weakness of his definition. I missed that your selection process does in fact select the best c…

Yes, but that's not the common usage of the word. Or how most people understand it. With that usage you could say ivy league schools are NOT biased against Asians since Asian graduates aren't more successful than non-Asian ones, except nobody does.

Hypothetical logic is flawed anyway. Higher ability Asian graduates could be less / only equally successful in the workplace due to pervasive external bias too. A lot of this is exacerbated by the fact that "soft skills" are more important for high status careers, and your "soft skills" are pretty much defined by tribal associations. It's the core of how we interact socially, and it causes problems that are really only fixed by alleviating scarcity.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#112

Post by lexcorvus »

rewqfdsa wrote: post #107
55555 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comment. There are two types of fairness, (a) fair rules, and (b) fair outcome.

Favoring fair outcome over having fair rules is against everything I believe. We should not strive for a participation trophy culture.

Indeed. The problem is that people frequently infer unfair rules from unequal outcomes, without taking into account the possibility of systematic group differences.

    Alan: I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    Bob:  How do you know there isn't equality of opportunity?

    Alan: Well, just look at how unequal the outcomes are!
At this point, Bob would be wise to change the subject, because if he pressed on, he might get this:

    Bob:  Can you give me an example?

    Alan: Group X is underrepresented in Field Y.

    Bob:  Maybe Group X isn't as good at Field Y.

    Alan: What? That's racist and/or sexist!
And if Bob were to make a comment to this effect on Hacker News, he's probably get downvoted. This is because most people agree with Alan, and many of them abuse their downvote privileges to punish ideas they disagree with rather than those that don't further the discussion. This degrades the quality of discourse, but at least it helps reassure the downvoters that they aren't racist and/or sexist.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#113

Post by dthal »

In the post, PG states that First Round's study is evidence of gender bias in VC financing. But footnote [2] is important: Uber was excluded as an outlier. Now...excluding Uber is reasonable (it is sort of an outlier), but so is not excluding it (it was a company that First Round invested in). When the conclusion from a data analysis depends on which way you go on something like this - which of two reasonable alternatives you pick - then the results are fragile and they don't really support either conclusion very well.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#114

Post by rewqfdsa »

lexcorvus wrote: post #112
rewqfdsa wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Favoring fair outcome over having fair rules is against everything I believe. We should not strive for a participation trophy culture.

Indeed. The problem is that people frequently infer unfair rules from unequal outcomes, without taking into account the possibility of systematic group differences. Alan: I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Bob: How do you know there isn't equality of opportunity? Alan: Well, just look at how unequal the outcomes are! At this point, Bob would be wise to change the subject, because if he pre…

Right, and unwillingness to consider the possibility of group differences comes from a quasi-religious devotion to the blank slate model of human nature. The way radical egalitarians see it, we're not only equal in dignity, but in potential.

That's a pretty view, but it's inconsistent with reality, and radical egalitarians need to come up with increasingly implausible explanations to explain everyday circumstances that make perfect sense once you drop the blank slate model.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#115

Post by vog »

WildUtah wrote: post #20

On a simple mathematical basis, this is false. Consider two groups of candidates for a scholarship, A and B. We want to select all candidates that have an 80% or better chance of graduation. Group A comes from a population where the chance of graduation is distributed uniformly from 0% to 100% and group B is from one where the chance is distributed uniformly from 10% to 90%, with the same average but less variation i…

> But we haven't been biased against A. [...] It was just their prior distribution that was different.

This is why that isn't a counter example. Right at the beginning, the article clearly states that this method is only applicable if the prior distribution is equal:

| You can use this technique whenever (a) [...], (b) [...], and (c) the groups of applicants you're looking at have roughly equal distribution of ability.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#116

Post by lfowles »

tansey wrote: post #92
yummyfajitas wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A null hypothesis is just a specific thing you are trying to disprove. In this case, it's simply that the min of both distributions is identical. I am assuming we know exactly one thing about the class the measures f and g come from: for every function in that class, \int_C^{C+d} f(x) dx >= h(d) for some monotonic function h(d). The p-value is then computed in terms of h(d), since p >= h(d)^N.

Okay, I'll have to wait for your full write-up, because I am not seeing the path of thought here.

I'll have you know that this particular subthread was way too civil for the Internet.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#117

Post by iand »

rewqfdsa wrote: post #107
55555 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comment. There are two types of fairness, (a) fair rules, and (b) fair outcome.

Favoring fair outcome over having fair rules is against everything I believe. We should not strive for a participation trophy culture.

This well-circulated image shows that making everyone a winner has merit in some circumstances.

http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-equality-justic...

The left hand side is fair rules, the right hand side shows a fair outcome

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#118

Post by owens99 »

Many of these comments remind me of one of the most potent biases known to man: confirmation bias. If you are smart and want to believe something, you will surely be able to come up with a mathematical (albeit flawed) way to convince yourself you are right.

Re: A Way to Detect Bias

#120

Post by rewqfdsa »

iand wrote: post #117
rewqfdsa wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Favoring fair outcome over having fair rules is against everything I believe. We should not strive for a participation trophy culture.

This well-circulated image shows that making everyone a winner has merit in some circumstances. http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-equality-justic... The left hand side is fair rules, the right hand side shows a fair outcome

The baseball game in the image wouldn't be worth if equality of outcome were the rule for baseball team tryouts. The entire game is based on fair competition under the rules pushing participants toward excellence.

Inequality of outcome is the entire reason we see baseball played at a high level. When you demand equality of outcome regardless of talent or effort, you're asking for society to stagnate. You're asking for pervasive mediocrity. You're asking for us to kill effort and motivation. No thanks.

Post reply on HN