Correlation between outcomes and identity groups is particularly not bias if the two are conditionally independent given other variables (e.g., income level).
-
IIUC: Instead of using identify markers (eg: race) as a dominant feature, lets also start using other variables which may be more causal (eg: income levels). (but they are not that effective for political mobilization as race is)
That would be one interpretation. I think it's just a syntactic and referential ambiguity though: that what he's saying is that if conditioning on other variables doesn't lead to differences, then it's not bias to not condition, to use the broader category only for understanding
-
-
Understanding based on identity is easy since data is easily available Solutions should look at other variables which have a stronger correlation & also offer direct paths for corrective action LowIncomeFam->NoAfterSchoolCare->LessTimeOnHW->PoorAcademicPrf is easier 2 fix \1
-
If we're committed to doing interventions no matter what it's true that we should focus on those areas where interventions have some efficacy even if that efficacy is low, that's true. I am not sure if Pedro would agree that we should have such an unconditional commitment.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.