Disparate Impact

[Chief_Pedant]

@Marley23

Improve schools? Design a less biased test? Ditch the concept of standardized testing? If there’s a reason none of these would work I’m interested to hear it.

None of these will work because the reason for population differences is genetic and not just opportunity.

At every level, across thousands of school systems and tens of thousands of tests, even when opportunity is normalized, the rank order of various populations–particularly ones based on gender and traditional racial categories–does not change simply because opportunity is equalized or supposed bias is removed.

The New Haven case is typical, but it’s only a newsworthy example. The broad ordinary experience never makes the news.

Women can’t compete on any kind of screening test devised for the NFL or PGA.

White western european men aren’t ever going to be equally represented in the NBA just by providing them better opportunity and helping them not be so lazy in their work ethic for developing basketball skills.

Blacks are never going to be on par with asians on their SATs even if their household is superiorly educated and richer, and their schooling system superior in comparison with the asian peer group.

The differences in potential among our population groups is genetic, and until we come to grips with that, we’ll continue to have laws based on an incorrect premise: that given equal opportunity, all groups will perform equally. That’s nonsense and no one has ever been able to show it.

8 years on after identical educational background opportunity, 1st-year Post-Med School licensing exams show the same broad disparity between and the same rank order between blacks and whites that was present at admission to college (and admission to med school).

Any hiring screen that requires quantitative measures for physical or mental capacity will always show a difference among populations because those differences–at an average level for race- and gender- based populations, at least–are genetic and therefore immutable.

[Honesty]

@Chief_Pedant

The differences in potential among our population groups is genetic, and until we come to grips with that, we’ll continue to have laws based on an incorrect premise: that given equal opportunity, all groups will perform equally. That’s nonsense and no one has ever been able to show it.

Yet, I’m still waiting for you to name a neural gene that blacks have less of than whites. Hell, I’d even take some brain weight data or axon-to-soma ratio between blacks and whites, if you can point to it. Even if we accept your premise, the government would have even firmer reason to protect the poor blacks who, of no fault of their own, are less capable than their white counterparts.

• Honesty

[Strassia]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Understood. I wasn’t saying there was no harm because it wasn’t harmful to the group, but because the group is not an entity that can suffer harm (at least that anyone should care about it). Again, this is leaving aside the issue of whether it’s a cover for genuine discrimination.

I’ll try an example. There are 10 Christians and 10 Jews in the job pool, with 10 available jobs. The employer announces that preference is given to people who were born in this state. Assume that it’s unclear whether this serves a genuine purpose and the company seems to believe it’s a legitimate requirement. 8 of the Christians and 5 of the Jews fill this requirement. This requirement has a disparate negative impact on Jews. But Jews are not a meaningful category for purposes of assessing harm, because
religion is not the basis for the requirement. Any individual Jew is either harmed or not harmed based on birth location, which is also true of every Christian. This would also be true if the number of Jews who met the requirement was the same as the number of Christians.

This becomes an issue because there is no way to tell that rule was not established specifically eliminate Jews from the pool. There are many ways to indirectly discriminate. Heck what do you think the literacy tests and grandfather clauses were all about? If it illegal to block voters because they are black, we will just choose qualification that aren’t based on race, but will still let us keep out black voters. This is the history that you are fighting. This is why disparate impact is given scrutiny. Not because all groups must have equal outcomes, but because stealth discrimination has been used for so long and we still don’t have a mind reading device.

If in truth the requirement is not really necessary, then anyone born out of state is losing out for no valid reason. But this type of discrimination is not illegal, and applies to everyone.

The only relative harm is to the general category of Jews. I disagree that there’s any moral issue with relative harm coming to the general category of Jews (or any other group). There’s no reason that every group has to be collectively as well off as every other group.

When it becomes an issue is when the basis of the discrimination is the race/religion/gender itself (whether stated or unstated). In that case, actual real people are being harmed unjustly, since they are being denied opportunities based on their race/religion/gender. But that’s not the case here.

(Marley23, I believe this addresses your post #15.)

Perhaps I’m wrong about the law, then.

Suppose I’m on the jury and I think the disparate outcome is proved but all arguments about the necessity of the requirement - both for and against - are flawed, so I am left with no good sense whether the requirement is in fact necessary. How am I supposed to vote? My impression is that I vote against the company. Is this incorrect?

In most cases where this would come up, you vote where the preponderance of the evidence takes you. What would you do if this was a simple property damage issue?

@Chief_Pedant

None of these will work because the reason for population differences is genetic and not just opportunity.

At every level, across thousands of school systems and tens of thousands of tests, even when opportunity is normalized, the rank order of various populations–particularly ones based on gender and traditional racial categories–does not change simply because opportunity is equalized or supposed bias is removed.

The New Haven case is typical, but it’s only a newsworthy example. The broad ordinary experience never makes the news.

Women can’t compete on any kind of screening test devised for the NFL or PGA.

White western european men aren’t ever going to be equally represented in the NBA just by providing them better opportunity and helping them not be so lazy in their work ethic for developing basketball skills.

Blacks are never going to be on par with asians on their SATs even if their household is superiorly educated and richer, and their schooling system superior in comparison with the asian peer group.

The differences in potential among our population groups is genetic, and until we come to grips with that, we’ll continue to have laws based on an incorrect premise: that given equal opportunity, all groups will perform equally. That’s nonsense and no one has ever been able to show it.

8 years on after identical educational background opportunity, 1st-year Post-Med School licensing exams show the same broad disparity between and the same rank order between blacks and whites that was present at admission to college (and admission to med school).

Any hiring screen that requires quantitative measures for physical or mental capacity will always show a difference among populations because those differences–at an average level for race- and gender- based populations, at least–are genetic and therefore immutable.

I have heard this many times and yo seem to be implying that on a distribution of achievement or scores that the groups are almost completely separated. That a small deviation in the mean is proof that any given member of the group A is better than any given member of group B.

You also seem to imply that social racial differences disappear after graduation. That the being granted an MD removes the color of a persons skins and makes them indistinguishable from any one else with those initials after their name.

Jonathan

[Marley23]

@Honesty

Yet, I’m still waiting for you to name a neural gene that blacks have less of than whites.

Hope you didn’t cancel your dinner plans in anticipation of that info being posted, 'cause it isn’t going to happen.

[athelas]

@villa

What is your point on this? How does this effect disparate impact analysis in the work place, for example?

It shows that a metric that colleges regard as perfectly legitimate and has high predictive value can have disparate impact, and that unequal outcomes does not mean institutional racism.

[athelas]

@Honesty

Yet, I’m still waiting for you to name a neural gene that blacks have less of than whites. Hell, I’d even take some brain weight data or axon-to-soma ratio between blacks and whites, if you can point to it. Even if we accept your premise, the government would have even firmer reason to protect the poor blacks who, of no fault of their own, are less capable than their white counterparts.

Fact: Different races have different average IQs which translate to different performance in jobs and in standardized tests.
Fact: IQ is about 70% heritable; hence, there is a large genetic component.
Fact: Different races have different gene populations, such that you can even separate out different European populationsbased on genetic analysis.

What would Occam’s Razor suggest?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Strassia

This becomes an issue because there is no way to tell that rule was not established specifically eliminate Jews from the pool. There are many ways to indirectly discriminate. Heck what do you think the literacy tests and grandfather clauses were all about? If it illegal to block voters because they are black, we will just choose qualification that aren’t based on race, but will still let us keep out black voters. This is the history that you are fighting. This is why disparate impact is given scrutiny. Not because all groups must have equal outcomes, but because stealth discrimination has been used for so long and we still don’t have a mind reading device.

There are two separate points that you are conflating. 1. is whether the criteria are being used as a cover for something else. I’ve conceded that this is an issue, but have quibbled with the burden of proof. 2. is whether the disparate impact on one group is an evil in and of itself, even if there was in fact no discriminatory intent. My example was addressing the second point.

In most cases where this would come up, you vote where the preponderance of the evidence takes you. What would you do if this was a simple property damage issue?

I postulated a scenario where there was no valid evidence either way. In a property dispute that goes to the defendant. Again, my understanding here is that once disparate impact has been established, the defense has the burden of showing that it was necessary, and if neither side presents evidence about this (or presents convincing evidence) then the disparate impact is considered discrimination.

This has enormous impact, since there are a lot of things that are not “provable” but may be legitimately held opinions based on experience, and may even be true.

[villa]

@athelas

It shows that a metric that colleges regard as perfectly legitimate and has high predictive value can have disparate impact, and that unequal outcomes does not mean institutional racism.

And disparate impact law doesn’t have a problem with disparate impacts alone. Hence the defendant’s ability to show the metric is perfectly legitimate and has high predictive value.

So I will ask again, what was your point on this?

[DanBlather]

@villa

And as to your second point. White male WASPs simply aren’t discriminated against in any significant fashion in the employment arena. It just doesn’t happen.

Yes, that is why there are so many white male professors of African American and Women’s study, or white male VPs of Diversity. If you are Hispanic, Black, or female and submit a resume to a high-tech company they will fall over themselves to hire you. If you are some poor, white shlub from South Boston who is the first person in his family to go to college, the college recruiter is not going to put a code on the resume to let HR know you are an “under-represented minority”.

[brickbacon]

@athelas

It shows that a metric that colleges regard as perfectly legitimate and has high predictive value can have disparate impact, and that unequal outcomes does not mean institutional racism.

The SAT, like many other tests, is not highly predictive. Do you have any evidence to dispute this?

If it were, and if gave us some understanding of our genetic potential, then why do people spend billions of dollars on test preparation? If they think it will bring them closer to their personal genetic potential, then we can assume that those who lack those services will not test to their potential, undermining the initial argument that genetics play such a large role.

[Strassia]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

There are two separate points that you are conflating. 1. is whether the criteria are being used as a cover for something else. I’ve conceded that this is an issue, but have quibbled with the burden of proof. 2. is whether the disparate impact on one group is an evil in and of itself, even if there was in fact no discriminatory intent. My example was addressing the second point.

And my point is that is impossible to prove intent (barring massive idiocy). We can never prove why the policy was made and we extensive historical evidence that stealth discrimination was used. The laws are written with those two facts in mind.

I postulated a scenario where there was no valid evidence either way. In a property dispute that goes to the defendant. Again, my understanding here is that once disparate impact has been established, the defense has the burden of showing that it was necessary, and if neither side presents evidence about this (or presents convincing evidence) then the disparate impact is considered discrimination.

This has enormous impact, since there are a lot of things that are not “provable” but may be legitimately held opinions based on experience, and may even be true.

If I understand your scenario correctly, the disparate impact is amply proved, but there is no valid about the reasoning or purpose behind the policy in question. Is that correct?

Assuming that is the case, then the only conclusion is that that the policy appears completely arbitrary. As I pointed out above, due to the history of stealth discrimination, any arbitrary policy that has disparate impact should be suspect.

Jonathan

[MeanOldLady]

@villa

And disparate impact law doesn’t have a problem with disparate impacts alone. Hence the defendant’s ability to show the metric is perfectly legitimate and has high predictive value.

So I will ask again, what was your point on this?

I think his point is that blacks are genetically inferior, so any system designed would automatically have a disparate impact. See below:

@athelas

Fact: Different races have different average IQs which translate to different performance in jobs and in standardized tests.
Fact: IQ is about 70% heritable; hence, there is a large genetic component.
Fact: Different races have different gene populations, such that you can even separate out different European populationsbased on genetic analysis.

What would Occam’s Razor suggest?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Strassia

And my point is that is impossible to prove intent (barring massive idiocy). We can never prove why the policy was made and we extensive historical evidence that stealth discrimination was used. The laws are written with those two facts in mind.

Just because stealth discrimination was done by certain people in certain places at certain times has no bearing on whether a given job requirement, by other people in a different place and time, is stealth discrimination.

I understand that there’s legitimate concern about stealth discrimination. But automatically assuming that every disparate outcome is stealth discrimination until proven otherwise seems like an overreaction to me.

If I understand your scenario correctly, the disparate impact is amply proved, but there is no valid about the reasoning or purpose behind the policy in question. Is that correct?

I think you’re missing a word after “valid” but it sounds correct.

Assuming that is the case, then the only conclusion is that that the policy appears completely arbitrary.

Not so. As I’ve said repeatedly, there are many things that are widely thought to be true, based on “common sense” and experience, but which are difficult or impossible to prove. These ideas may be true or false, but they are not “completely arbitrary”.

[Shodan]

@Strassia

How would the Justice Department do that exactly? How could you prove that a policy was designed to be discriminatory?

How would you prove that any other crime was committed with intent?

Yet attorneys seem to manage it every day.

Thomas Sewell was, I think, the one who pointed out that this body of law made statistical variance a federal crime.

Regards,
Shodan

[villa]

@DanBlather

If you are some poor, white shlub from South Boston who is the first person in his family to go to college, the college recruiter is not going to put a code on the resume to let HR know you are an “under-represented minority”.

Odd that poor, white shlubs from South Boston are NOT White Male WASPs.

My personal opinion is that much discrimination occurs on a class basis, and because of racism, black people are overrepresented within discrimianted against classes. There is also a level of racism that leads to discrimination against black people regardless of socio-economic status.

I would like to see affirmative action programs based on class. Trouble is, it is a dirty word in US Politics because it smacks of socialism. But to claims WASPs are oppressed is ridiculous.

[villa]

@MeanOldLady

I think his point is that blacks are genetically inferior, so any system designed would automatically have a disparate impact. See below:

I guessed that might of been it, but I was hoping either to be mistaken, or that he would come out and say it.

[brickbacon]

@athelas

Fact: Different races have different average IQs which translate to different performance in jobs and in standardized tests.

Your cite (the free part at least) says nothing meaningful about job performance, nor does it make any compelling argument that IQ or standardized tests have much meaning in the real world. The cite even says the following:

“Narrowing the test score gap would require continuous effort by both blacks and whites, and it would probably take more than one generation. But we think it can be done.”

Exactly how could this be accomplished if you feel there are significant genetic differences that preclude Blacks from competing with Whites?

@athelas

Fact: IQ is about 70% heritable; hence, there is a large genetic component.

IQ does not equal intelligence, success, or aptitude.

@athelas

Fact: Different races have different gene populations, such that you can even separate out different European populationsbased on genetic analysis.

Difference “races” are different gene populations informally speaking. Your map only reinforces the fact that there are no “races” since most populations in Europe would fall under the same “racial” category informally speaking. Moreover you are making the invalid assumption that people who self-identify as Black, White, or Asian have the same genetic makeup as others in that category. Halle Berry, Barack Obama, and Wentworth Miller are all biracial (Black/White), yet they look very different, and might self-identify in different ways. The problem is that you assume they have the same genetic shortcomings (or talents) as someone like Wesley Snipes or Usain Bolt because they look (or don’t look) or self-identify (or not) as Black. Do you think their scholastic aptitude and intellectual ability is literally genetically linked to the color of their skin?

@athelas

What would Occam’s Razor suggest?

That the most obvious thing that people like Halle Berry and Wesley Snipes have in common is that they both look Black, and are treated as such. A basic family history would lead most to the conclusion that their genes are pretty dissimilar. Yet, they both experienced similar treatment in our society. They both had experiences that can be substantiated and studied. There is far more evidence of the effects of nurture than there are nature (in this case).

Lastly, can you actually try to present some proof the next time you make this argument, because it is really tiring to have to point out the logical flaws in these arguments thread after thread.

Or just finally admit your are a racist who bases his/her belief in Black intellectual inferiority on faith and dubious science. There is a reason that mainstream society finds your views abhorrent and ill-though. It’s not because we are blind to reality, it’s because you have almost no proof. Maybe one day science will prove you right, but the rest of us, who live in the world as it is now, and not the one we wish it to be, would rather not have to listen to you awkwardly shoehorn in your particularly distasteful brand of evangelical bigotry into every discussion even tangentially related to race.

We get it; you think Black people are stupid - but, we shouldn’t think ill of you because you also admit that we run fast and are good at basketball. Don’t blame you, blame Mother Nature, you say. You can’t prove any of it directly because the legions of scientists, doctors, and others professionals who study these things are too blinded by ideology and political correctness, or are not smart enough to validate the conclusions you were able to come to using only your keen sense of human nature and Google. It’s a shame that none of these professionals are able to match your sense of dedication to the cause.

[Honesty]

@athelas

Fact: Different races have different average IQs which translate to different performance in jobs and in standardized tests.
Fact: IQ is about 70% heritable; hence, there is a large genetic component.
Fact: Different races have different gene populations, such that you can even separate out different European populationsbased on genetic analysis.

What would Occam’s Razor suggest?

I’m sorry, I’m just not buying that #1 and #2 are related. I flat-out reject #2, altogether. The third “Fact” is the most promising. It’s a study examining nucleotide differences in over 30,000 genes, the authors find that nucleotide substitutions more-or-less correlate with self-identified location. For example, if Bob from Sweden has a substitution for alanine to valine, the study shows that a statistically significant portion of that population also have that substitution. The strength of the study is that its published by a premiere scientific journal, the weakness is that study says zilch about genes that are required for the processing, storage, and retrieval of memories. Are you with me so far? I hope so. ** Substitutions at the genetic level doesn’t necessarily mean changes at the phenotypic level.** For example, Bob can could have frameshift mutation in the insulin gene that has no effect on the secretion of the insulin protein. On the other hand, Sarah, could have a single nucleotide substitution in the hemoglobin gene which would decrease the ability for the protein to chelate oxygen.

If you think blacks are intellectually inferior because your experiences dictate it then you are entitled to your beliefs but to lay this flower-shaped horseturd at the feet of scientific inquiry is absurd but familiar. Science didn’t support the viewpoint that blacks are only 60% human (which would make them less “human” than chimps) nor has it shown that the brains of blacks are deformed or less mighty than whites. To believe there is a genetic relationship between blacks and scholarship without the genetic evidence is called faith. It’s comparable to believing muslims are muslims because they possess genes that make them more inclined to believe in Allah than Jesus Christ.

• Honesty

[athelas]

@Honesty

I’m sorry, I’m just not buying that #1 and #2 are related. I flat-out reject #2, altogether.

Er, cite?

[athelas]

From here:

THAT the risk-taking end of the financial industry is dominated by men is unarguable. But does it discriminate against women merely because they are women? Well, it might. But a piece of research just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Paola Sapienza of Northwestern University, near Chicago, suggests an alternative—that it is not a person’s sex, per se, that is the basis for discrimination, but the level of his or her testosterone. Besides being a sex hormone, testosterone also governs appetite for risk. Control for an individual’s testosterone levels and, at least in America, the perceived sexism vanishes.

This once again shows that quite subtle but perfectly fair factors can contribute to unequal employment preferences and outcomes in employment. The knee-jerk feminist would not have done this study and simply cried sexism by virtue of disparate impact, yet further study shows that biological differences matter.