Correlation between outcomes and identity groups is particularly not bias if the two are conditionally independent given other variables (e.g., income level).
-
-
Replying to @pmddomingos
This is phrased in a way that's difficult to parse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr @pmddomingos
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)
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @SaxSF @pmddomingos
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr @pmddomingos
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
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.