|
|
|
|
|
by mdeck_
1597 days ago
|
|
This seems to be precisely what the article says. > The attempt to use computers to assist in racial classification tasks has helped sharpen the issues because computers can't deal with fuzzy concepts. If you try to define an ethnic code that is logically complete, consistent, and determinable for every person using current technology, you find that you can't. > There seems to be a silent conspiracy to deny the existence of mixed racial groups in the United States. Most such people have acquiesced to this conspiracy and don't even think of themselves in those terms. Instead, they go along with the idea that they are members of one of the races recognized by the government. In fact, they often identify with a traditional race that represents only a small fraction of their genetic heritage! |
|
Any reasonable way to get a computer to determine race will yield a fuzzy answer: based on your family tree you are 36% European, based on facial recognition the algorithm is 60% certain you are white, based on genetic sequencing you are 4% of African descent. All those are perfectly valid fuzzy answers.
If you then try to match those to ridiculous categories like "Black, not of Hispanic origin" it obviously goes wrong quickly. What exactly is "Black"? Does one Spanish great-grandfather disqualify you from that category? Or only if that great-grandfather was from Brazil instead of Spain?