|
|
|
|
|
|
by theptip
2813 days ago
|
|
|
Well, it was clear that _you_ think so. My point was that you should consider the meaning of the word under which the post you're replying to is correct, especially given that the author was claiming specific domain experience. |
|
|
> The lower certainty would in turn lead to lower rankings for women even without any bias in the data.
your post said:
> If we're talking about the technical statistical definition, bias means systematic deviation from the underlying truth in the data
So I think my interpretation is correct, even though it's not "the technically statistically correct usage". You were referring to the bias of the algorithm (i.e. the mean divergence from the mean in the data), whereas we were referring to the "hiring bias" evident in the data. In fact, your "bias" was mentioned as "lower rankings for women" - i.e. "the algorithm would have (statistical) bias even without (sexist) bias in the data" and I was replying that I think that's false.