|
|
|
|
|
|
by jinst8gmi
3880 days ago
|
|
|
I have zero interest in "political correctness". I'm in favour of considering data at a finer granularity than you are in order to obtain a more accurate picture. Consider the example of someone who is an expert on a particular subject and happens to live in a country which on average has a poor education system. Is it better to use the generalisation about that country having a poor education system, or the more detailed case-specific facts? |
|
|
That is truly and honestly good to hear!
>I'm in favour of considering data at a finer granularity than you are in order to obtain a more accurate picture.
I understand where you're coming from, but interactions are only interpretable after you've considered the main effects. To be sure, I'm not advocating that people not employ finer-grained measures, but in evaluating risk, you must consider overall trends (if only to discover that your specific case is an exception).
Moreover, a healthy intellectual environment demands that we be able to discuss large trends without being accused of bigotry.
>Is it better to use the generalisation about that country having a poor education system, or the more detailed case-specific facts?
This is a false dichotomy. It's note one or the other. I will -- again -- repeat my arguments:
1. We should consider both large trends and specific cases.
2. Considering general trends -- which necessarily imply some non-trivial degree of generalization -- is not xenophobic in and of itself.
3. Willful ignorance (in the sense of "ignoring") of large trends is a Bad Thing.
I'm willing to believe you have no interest in political correctness, but then I must insist that your rhetoric is in contradiction with your values. You're ultimately endorsing something you oppose.