I feel like it may have even obscured the point...I spent more time wading through the math than I did thinking about the bias shield effect. Since it didn’t really clarify anything, it came across as some kind of signalling...not sure if that’s what it was, but it’s certainly what it looks like.
The math doesn’t add a lot at the moment, but I like to promote the idea that you can analyze the behavior of large groups of people mathematically. If you remove the “bias shield function” from the math, I think you have a framework that can be used for analyzing bias in other problems.
It does add the conclusion that categorizing people in more dimensions diminishes the effect, and that this effect may not ever be cancelled out entirely by adding more dimensions (I thought it would be). The particular functions I used are not well-motivated, so you can’t draw the second conclusion with confidence.
The math doesn’t add a lot at the moment, but I like to promote the idea that you can analyze the behavior of large groups of people mathematically. If you remove the “bias shield function” from the math, I think you have a framework that can be used for analyzing bias in other problems.
I disagree, adding a mathematical model where every aspect of it was pulled out of your ass, is more likely to give you a false sense of precision then help your analysis.
Most sociological mathematical models are formed by thinking about the relationships involved qualitatively, then building models that are simple, have those qualitative aspects, and can be worked with. Then you can gather data, compare the models to the data, and revise the models.
Take the Cobb-Douglas model of a production function. It was pulled out of someone’s mind (not their ass) in just such a manner. Perhaps by luck, it never needed to be revised, because it turned out to model real data very well.
The use of a “bias function” is the really questionable thing here. Is what is really going on that people add imputed believability to someone who is biased, or can you get the same results just by saying that people agree with people who agree with them? You can’t get the same results easily in this case, because moderates don’t make the same kind impassioned defense of other moderates. You could suppose opinions are not evenly-distributed and conclude that moderates would do that, if there were more of them. Or you could explain the data as signalling group affiliation rather than having to do with belief.
Whatever explanation you prefer, putting it in math (when done well) distinguishes these different parts of the argument and makes these critical points more apparent.
(Some models are built by looking at a lot of data and noticing patterns, like Zipf’s law. Some, more often found in physics, are built from the ground up, like E=mc^2. Those are better, if we can make them.)
Most sociological mathematical models are formed by thinking about the relationships involved qualitatively, then building models that are simple, have those qualitative aspects, and can be worked with.
Most sociological mathematical models are also total crap.
Then you can gather data, compare the models to the data, and revise the models.
Repeat until your model has enough free parameters to be unfalsifiable.
It doesn’t add anything useful to the conversation,
Yes it does. It is (often) a negation of the previous assertion—in this case just the implied suggestion that sociological mathematical models are useful. To the extent that said assertion can be said to be a contribution the rejection of it can too.
I think this is a deep insight. I’m not sure the math adds anything, though.
I feel like it may have even obscured the point...I spent more time wading through the math than I did thinking about the bias shield effect. Since it didn’t really clarify anything, it came across as some kind of signalling...not sure if that’s what it was, but it’s certainly what it looks like.
Oh, I don’t think it’s signalling, I just think Phil really likes math :-)
The math doesn’t add a lot at the moment, but I like to promote the idea that you can analyze the behavior of large groups of people mathematically. If you remove the “bias shield function” from the math, I think you have a framework that can be used for analyzing bias in other problems.
It does add the conclusion that categorizing people in more dimensions diminishes the effect, and that this effect may not ever be cancelled out entirely by adding more dimensions (I thought it would be). The particular functions I used are not well-motivated, so you can’t draw the second conclusion with confidence.
I disagree, adding a mathematical model where every aspect of it was pulled out of your ass, is more likely to give you a false sense of precision then help your analysis.
Most sociological mathematical models are formed by thinking about the relationships involved qualitatively, then building models that are simple, have those qualitative aspects, and can be worked with. Then you can gather data, compare the models to the data, and revise the models.
Take the Cobb-Douglas model of a production function. It was pulled out of someone’s mind (not their ass) in just such a manner. Perhaps by luck, it never needed to be revised, because it turned out to model real data very well.
The use of a “bias function” is the really questionable thing here. Is what is really going on that people add imputed believability to someone who is biased, or can you get the same results just by saying that people agree with people who agree with them? You can’t get the same results easily in this case, because moderates don’t make the same kind impassioned defense of other moderates. You could suppose opinions are not evenly-distributed and conclude that moderates would do that, if there were more of them. Or you could explain the data as signalling group affiliation rather than having to do with belief.
Whatever explanation you prefer, putting it in math (when done well) distinguishes these different parts of the argument and makes these critical points more apparent.
(Some models are built by looking at a lot of data and noticing patterns, like Zipf’s law. Some, more often found in physics, are built from the ground up, like E=mc^2. Those are better, if we can make them.)
Most sociological mathematical models are also total crap.
Repeat until your model has enough free parameters to be unfalsifiable.
Downvoted.
I am disappointed in the LW community every time I see a comment consisting primarily of: ” is crap.”
It doesn’t add anything useful to the conversation, or propose any solutions or ideas. It is just plain rude. Please stop.
We can do better than that.
Yes it does. It is (often) a negation of the previous assertion—in this case just the implied suggestion that sociological mathematical models are useful. To the extent that said assertion can be said to be a contribution the rejection of it can too.