Maybe you don't accept the premise that bias is heritable? If not, what definition of heritability are you using?
-
-
Bias is any reason not in the stated criterion. It is not always bigotry, but it is group statistical and not due to the claimed factors. This is important in criminal proceedings and career advancement, where clear criteria are necessary to avoid allowing bigotry and bad forces.
-
No, actually, that's not necessary at all and just ends up increasing bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency.
-
Obviously, those with a vested interest in institutionalising bigotry will claim it’s not necessary. The reason it’s necessary is because that’s how we uncover the bigotry.
-
No, you think you're uncovering bigotry but in reality your criteria are just insufficient (eg differences in sentencing for the same crimes without considering the unique facts of each case (protip: black crime tends to involve more cruelty at every charging level))
-
No. When it is unstated, it is just bias. We measure bias. This is found in decades of research, across social process. Only by stating the criteria explicitly and measuring those can we determine which is due to bigotry. You seem to conflate these.
-
Again, you exclude other confounders and assume it's bigotry as a result (ie you're not measuring bigotry directly), but you aren't actually excluding all the relevant confounders
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.