trustmath

The account eventually gains some level of recognition - while you have vocal haters, you also have people that upvote their content (likely based on the username) to the frontpage. Most of what gallowboob posts is garbage and I guarantee you that if it was coming from accounts with less karma or notariety it wouldn't reach the front-page. You have to consider that some of the people upvoting are people commenting on the threads.

Everything is mostly true except truth about truth.

We change as we interact. This is just as easily explainable through a perceptive bias - the difference between experiencing and having experienced.

It's hard to say which layer you are working with without having to know the whole model. You can always look at data as initial to what is computed, but 1. That's not much different than looking at the code and 2. Everything that is initial probably can be defined in terms of what computed it, unless you want to draw some arbitrary wiggly line between perception and act of taking a record or something like that, in which there are tons of use cases where one defines the other, no matter what sort of nomenclature you start with.

Evidence is better than common sense.

It's not neurosis if it has a useful purpose.

I suppose if one holds the view that men and women are mentally identical on average, it would lead one to the conclusion that the gender disparity in diagnosis rates is due to social factors (or some kind of medical discrimination).

It might be easier to think about this on a different level of granularity. The problem has a self referential issue (requires social to evaluate social) if discrimination is the largest factor considered. Aggregate social factors over time yield discrimination - can't be corrected if the solution defines the problem.

Thank you, that means a lot.

What I find interesting in your last paragraph is that you, yourself, seem to make the distinction between reality and mathematics, which would indicate, at least to me, that you recognise that it is but a tool created for a use and not something that had a pre-existence that we could discover.

No, I continue to express uncertainty and doubt concerning the origin of math. If math is the ground for some people, math does not have an origin. Math is the origin.

I understand that may be a very difficult paradigm to think with if you are not used to thinking in that framework, but I am like that. Math, ground. Reality is defined by math. We may be incorrect in the translation, but that's a work in progress. Math that comes from reality is math that is incomplete.

I can't give you a question that yields a satisfactory answer until it does.

I don't know if you can concretely say that mathematics is invented. Where does it come from? You observe reality, but what if reality is math?

You can't say it exists outside of the realm of possibility that some people have a base observation that rests more on math than it does anything else.

Your transition into pragmaticism is appropriate for your argument, but I don't know if it's appropriate for mathematics that concerns computation. The universe in the argument I am constructing would be the universe of math, not the physical universe. In that regard, I think pragmaticism can still be held as a primary value that can be realistically met.

Is this some variant of nerd bullying?

If math is invented, math is the union of thought, in relation to an objective measurement of reality, because the language expresses consistent and testable truths that can be observed and measured.

If math is discovered, math is the reality, that is tested against itself.

As for thought patterns and special ways of thinking - there's nothing wrong with nurturing an interest.

I think any thought patterns that exaggerate or minimize one's ability in math simply get in the way of doing math, eventually. Pure mathematics is done for itself. Applied mathematics is done for something else.

These things are so simple when they can cleanly be separated in descriptive rhetoric, but in the actual domains of math, they could not be more complicated.

That's somewhat appropriate, but, I think having higher standards for identifying discriminatory practices is covered under the umbrella of 'if people would just let them'.

Achieving that level of a standard is a balance.

There shouldn't be excuses being made. All that can do is contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions that presently exist, because the core issue isn't being identified.

Furthermore, if the core issue is the excuse itself, then again, this is covered under the umbrella of 'if people would just let them'. The secondary issue would then be that the core issue isn't being questioned.

I don't believe in unconscious thought, but if unconscious thought were real, it would be obvious that the only people who can be aware of it's effects are the people who can identify a difference between those two states of being, and be able to reduce that down to an model/abstraction/statement.

It doesn't matter if it's intentional or not to a victim. It's still the same system, same cause and effect, same yield of powerlessness.

Whichever way you want to see it.

+ If it's intentional it's not unconscious.

+ If it's unconscious it's part of a culture that tolerates the behavior to the point that it doesn't get questioned.

+ If it does get questioned, eventually people are just playing dumb or it becomes intentional - if it's provable that it continues to occur.

Truth over the belief of who is actually 'the best fit' for a job doesn't exist until the job is complete. This isn't about oppression. It's about discrimination magically becoming automated because no one bothers to look for these things pre-deployment.

Please read the article. This article is about automated reasoning that discards resumes that are strongly correlated to resumes of women.

Sure. It just sounds like their code and it's results got too complicated to reason about.

Yes, I am female, I am aware of the statistics. It's frustrating because my life literally gets impacted by automated reasoning such as this. It's not frustrating for anyone who says 'there just aren't enough of you'. That's something that is very easy to say by people who never have to experience that sort of discriminatory practice.

The painful stuff is when it's obvious and provable, because it highlights all the times it can be questionable as to whether it occurs.

That's always the excuse but an algorithm that shows bias against women has nothing to do with who has what interest unless that's a variable included in the data set initially. You are inferring that relation implicitly due to the result of the algorithm, but it doesn't mean that value is measured in the original set of data. If the algorithm is skewed to imply that, there is at least the possiblity that the algorithm has been trained to yield that result.

I wouldn't know unless I looked at all the data. But I'm not going to default to the popular opinion because that's literally half or more of the problem.

Buried, yes, I'm sure.

This should be obvious when testing. Whether the algorithm discriminates should be a top priority for designing these algorithms. That's half the damn math of machine learning. If you can construct an AI, you should know how to test it for flaw in reasoning. It's just another layer of ML to do that. Outliers. It's short sighted to push these things out assuming their output is correct just because it looks 'normal'.

I hate this industry. Shooting themselves in the foot over and over again because no one can get passed the idea that possibly, women can be just as good at math, logic and computer science - if people would just let them. This never ends. It's just one place after another, when it gets discovered. It never changes.