undefined | Better HN

0 pointszodiac10y ago0 comments

> His argument is based the proposition that different sexes/races have different market value profiles. He needs to demonstrate why that is the case before proceeding to heavy math.

Not really, his argument is that "PG's mean-post selection test (the 'PMST') is only valid if different sexes have the same distribution of abilities". If you or PG believe that the PMST is a valid way of showing that bias exists, the burden is on you to show that different sexes have the same distribution of abilities.

0 comments

LordHumungous10y ago

From the Paul Graham article:

>You can use this technique whenever (a) you have at least a random sample of the applicants that were selected, (b) their subsequent performance is measured, and (c) the groups of applicants you're comparing have roughly equal distribution of ability.

So yes, OP is ignoring the entire premise of PG's argument.

zodiacOP10y ago

OP acknowledges this... "Unfortunately, using the mean as a test statistic is flawed - it only works when the pre-selection distribution of A and B is identical, at least beyond C."

To me the rest of the article is asks the question, "requirement (c) is really strong, is there a way we can use post-selection statistics to determine bias while weakening (c)? what if we tried measuring the post-selection minimum instead of the mean?"

Also PG edited his essay to add that disclaimer only after WildUtah's comment, so it's possible that OP hasn't read the updated version.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse