"prejudice" is often the same thing as a prior from bayesian decision theory

"prejudice" is often the same thing as a prior from bayesian decision theory.

As data becomes more available and more and more decisions will be able to be made in a rational way, how will liberals deal with the fact that certain forms of prejudice are rational?

e.g. it is rational for you to be more wary of a group of black men walking towards you on the street at night than a group of malaysian men because you know that the rate per capita of black people committing violent crime is much higher than that of east asians.

Here I am forming a pre-judgment that these people pose a greater threat to my safety than another group of people based on information linked to their race, therefore I am being racist.

However I am also objectively correct in what I say and I am being objectively rational.

Are you sure you are being entierely rational in your example?
The facts are not denyable. In USA black people are more violent than others groups. There is a correlation between blacks and violence but it does not mean there is causality.
Your skin color does not make you violent, and being violent doesnt turn you black.
In fact you should focus on the real determinents of Physical violence. What about social domination, symbolic violence, social segregation, poverty and so much more factors that are particuliary important against certain groups of people?
What if I tell you your solution "run away from black like the fat americunt you are" is the cause of US black people violent behavior? Your racism and the social disqualification you throw at people based on their skin color is the root of your problem.

What's with all the white pixels on that pic?

caution is not judgement

You managed to publish a short story here without actually saying anything.

He's not implying that black skin is the cause of violence, merely that if you see a pack of niggers coming at you at night statistically you best be prepared

You answered none of the questions I asked in my "story"
I'll Just consider this thread as the usual /pol/ shitpost. Have fun in your White supremacist head.

The problem is that guys who spout facts like 'blacks are more likely to commit crimes ' overlap considerably with guys who shitpost on Veeky Forums about 'lel, shitskins are inferior they should he genocided XD poo in loo haha lol gas da kikes >:^(!"

If we could somehow distance cold objective acknowledgement of some basic statistical realities from actual racial hatred then I would feel more comfortable voicing those opinions but it seems like stormfags have to constantly ruin it.

I'm sorry that simple logic of rational decision making is too complicated for you to follow.

I'll try to make things simpler and more explicit.

the person in the example wants to avoid being mugged.
The person knows that black people cause much more violent crime per capita than say malaysian people.
Therefore the person knows that a group of say 3 black men that he knows nothing else about is much more likely to mug him than a group of 3 malaysian men that he knows nothing else about.

Therefore it is rational of him to be more cautious in the situation where he is walking towards the people who are significantly more likely to cause him harm.

Do you understand a bit better now?
Did you notice that at no point was any assumption made about caused blacks to have a higher per capita violent crime rate? It did not matter to the situation.

You on the other hand are making an assertion that seeks to explain what causes the high per capita violent crime rate of blacks but you have not backed it up with any evidence.

Because it's just pure negro rage.

Yes, blacks have a reason for why they're shit, but see, it's not my job to fix it, and even if it were, any outsider attempts to do so would be no different than white man's burden. Change must come from inside.

Also, your suggestions are laughable
>What if I tell you your solution "run away from black like the fat americunt you are" is the cause of US black people violent behavior?
"If you only had sex with the rapist he wouldn't be forced to rape"

>rational way,
you are one true retard. time for you to learn philosophy of science

he didn't answer your questions because your first questions are irrelevent to the point being made, which is about rational decision making under uncertainty and your last question has no evidence backing up its implicit assertion.

Overall your post is too emotional to follow a simple logical discussion and instead raises irrelevant points, so you're lucky that you've received this much attention at all.

Can you explain what I just said which is not rational?

I know you can't because I know that I have been rational, and I now know that you're unable to follow even basic decision theory.

You don't seem to understand the basics of sociology nor anthropology, why are you posting on this board?
You can't claim the monopoly of rationality because you found statistics that says Dark skined people have X behavior. You must always replace this in a social context which is way more complex than statistics can describe.

Wow you really are retarded.

Like legitimately, no joke.

HE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT SOCIOLOGY OR ANTHROPOLOGY, HE'S TALKING ABOUT MATHEMATICAL ODDS

It seems to be too much for you to understand that statistics are tools, not undenyable truth. And that they are socialy (politicaly) constructed. And so is your interprétation of stats. Nothing mathematical nor rational here

>get told "Overall your post is too emotional to follow a simple logical discussion and instead raises irrelevant points, "
>immediately do the same thing again:
>You don't seem to understand the basics of sociology nor anthropology,


Am I being trolled?
Are people really this mentally defective and unable to follow simple arguments?

Acknowledging that a certain demographic poses more of a threat is not racist (though many will say it is). Racist would be discriminating against an individual based on that premise. You can't be "objectively correct" about that.

>statistics are tools, not undenyable truth.
This is a vague point.

please could you explain what is irrational about the OP post, or this more explicit version of the OP's post And please could you do so without refuting things that the OP never said. This seems to be your main difficulty. You love attacking strawmen , which is low IQ of you.

>how will liberals deal with the fact that certain forms of prejudice are rational?
>liberals
Stop posting.

>statistics are a tool by whitey to oppress us
Can't make this shit up.

See, this is the reason why the humanities are a laughing stock.

There is nothing socially constructed about pure math.

Let me explain it to you, in terms even a chimp would understand
>black men do more bad things than they should
>therefore whenever you see a black man there is statistically a higher risk of black man doing a bad thing to you
>therefore it would be wise to be cautious around unknown black people at suspicious times of day and locations (back alley, night)

But if someone pulls statistics showing that on average white men are more likely to be rapists than any other race, you'll say it's "da joos tryin to keep the white man down".

Proof?

And by "more likely", I of course hope you mean disproportionate to their share of the population

This is not Veeky Forums-worthy.

I'm being memed right now.I know I'm being memed.

aha! But the person in the OP's example is discriminating by deciding to be more cautious among the black people in that situation.

Let us pose another example with the same underlying logic but a bgger decision as the end result.

Imagine you own a store.
You have a certain budget to allocate to preventing and catching shoplifting with this budget you hire a securty force whose man-hours you can assign to tasks as you see fit.

Now let's say that you know the rate per capita of shoplifting among black people is X1 and among other races it X2, X3, X4... respectively where X1 is higher than all the following (obviously in real life there would be other risk factors like age and how people are dressed so in real life those factors would be included in any rational policy as well)

In that case, given that your goal is to minimise the amount of things stolen, and given that it would be rational for you to assign security resources to monitoring a particular person according to the risk that they will commit shoplifting, it therefore would make sense for you to assign more security resources for each black person in the shop than each non-black person.
Which is treating people differently based on information linked to the colour of their skin, which is racist.
But it is also the rational thing to do here.

Now like I said before this is a simplified example because obviously in real life there is other visible information which would indicate whether someone is more or less likely to commit shoplifting, e.g behaviour in the store, age, the clothes they're wearing, and so a rational policy would take these things into account too, not just race. But it would take race into account as well.

And also one could say that by monitoring black people in stores somewhat more the store might get a bad reputation which would be bad for business, and these are also rational consideration which would be included as well, but they do not invalidate the point

This has got to be a joke?

Now you're blatantly resorting to putting words in his mouth, which shows you have no valid argument so you have to make one up then respond to it.

per capita white men rape more than several races, for example nearly all east asians. I acknowledge that.

But it isn't true that per capita white people rape more than all other races.
Black people for example commit more rape per capita. And in Europe, arabs and pakistanis do and afghans also rape more per capita than white people.

why not? It's about philosophy and logic
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy,

are you upset because you don't like rigorous logic and like wooly, fluffy humanities where you can get by on bluster?

>This is not pol with dates

Also in the sticky.

Your example is very faulty.

Racism is rational, fight me
>thread

would you care to explain how or are you incapable because you can't find fault with the example but feel some emotional disagreement that makes you upset ?

It's really sad that Veeky Forums is so ill equipped to think about things rationally or follow logical arguments.

>your logic is proven wrong
>you have no methodology
You don't belong to Veeky Forums

wholly unsubstantiated statements like these
>your logic is proven wrong
>you have no methodology
are what don't belong on Veeky Forums

you're doing this board a disservice by claiming to represent it while being so intellectually feeble.

Can you point out a single post here that has managed to prove the OP wrong? no, you cannot.

The first reply attempts to to refute the OP on the basis that skin color isn't the cause of violence but merely a correlation.

You will hear "correlation doesn't equal causation" if you attempt to argue with anyone with any background in science while comitting logical fallacies.

The OP simply dismissed his post as incoherent; although sloppily written it was not incoherent.

Be wary of anyone when walking alone at night. If you happen upon a group of people you ascertain to be a higher risk to you than average, be extra wary.

Whether it's racist or not i don't think anyone really cares and if that is what is up for debate; outlining the definition and usage of "racist" then we have no real points to discuss here and everyone can go home.

I did not call the first reply incoherent, I called it irrelevent, which it was because it does not refute the OP post at all. see you embarrass yourself by being as unable to follow a really quite simple argument as

secondly
> If you happen upon a group of people you ascertain to be a higher risk to you than average, be extra wary.

this is correct, and race is a relevant risk factor.

Apparently the people in this thread find several different things about my OP post contentious.

if all that you find contentious is that I'm asserting that being prejudiced towards someone and treating them differently because of their race constitutes racism then I guess that means you mostly agree with me.

>race is a relevant risk factor
>because I read statistics
>because "black people" is a relevant analysis category
>crime is not related to âge, gender, poverty, education, location and countless other variables.
>I Just want to make "rational" decisions based on shitty statistics I don't understand
>muh mathematical evidence

I've been homeless. Blacks do more stupid shit than other people in the same situation. I'm sorry, genetic information does not spread phenotypes equally amongst populations!

Please discuss this outrage with our local universe Boltzmann brain.

And I know the inevitable "but muh prejudice and racism"

Look, I spent four months in an alleyway with another fellow homeless dude, a nigerian immigrant. He was the most polite motherfucker although he was subject to bouts of schizophrenia.

Look, american blacks have to deal with subpar genetics, subpar cultures, subpar diets, blah blah. But almost every other single immigrant group has done better than them. You notice a pattern.

Who is she?

If black people are poorer on average a random black person is more likely to be poorer.

It is true, liberals are hysterical over racism and deny this simple fact, but still, it is just a dick move to judge someone because they are poor or black or whatever. In general it is pointless also, if you go around hating people and discriminating against them for largely irrelevant things you are turning down a lot of opportunities.

I think that prejudice as experienced by the person in your example probably has more to do a with the unconscious, inevitable psychological process based on emotions, past experiences, other biases, etc, rather than the kind of decision I would call "rational". A single data point is hardly enough for a rational judgement, you're not taking into account the level of certainty of that information, and you're not making any further inquiry about the intentions of that man. Your motivation is clearly emotional. Furthermore, the information you take into account in the decision, as it could be stats, physical context, social stereotypes, or whatever, is also determined by your own emotions (for example, if you were black yourself maybe you wouldn't give a rat's ass about those stats), therefore it is incorrect to call such an action "objectively rational", because hardly any action in day-to-day life is rational. They work though, or so you believe, that's what matter in the end.

>black skin

race is more than skin color dont be fallacious

Cool anecdotal evidence.

You make the argument that blacks are socialized to be violent but that doesn't change the fact that right now and for the entirety of the modern era, blacks have been the social group with the highest on-average number of violent criminal offenders

When I'm walking down the street at night and I see a black guy walking towards me, I'm not going to think to myself "Oh, despite blacks being extremely disproportionately represented in the # of violent criminal offenders, I'm going to give this guy the benefit if I take measures to protect myself from being mugged I will be contributing to this fellow's socialization towards violence and if he was born 500 years in the future when we have a proportional income tax rate based off race (95% for whites, 0% for blacks (this is only fair due to the history of oppression of blacks by whites) he would surely be an astounding upstanding citizen and probably a holder of multiple doctorate degrees"

nah

im gonna think "oh shit let me get to the other side of this street"

rational

fucking

self

interest

she has a babyfaced beta boyfriend

You should start your education with Claude Levi-Strauss "Race and History"
That was my Last contribution to this /pol/ thread
>implying you Will read a jew
>implying you read at all

That's like two boyfriends ago

Who is she?

race clearly is a relevent risk factor. I am not denying that other things are not also relevent risk factors but race clearly is a relevent risk factor.

As is clearly shown by this scenario I notice that you never directly acknowledge or respond to or say what is wrong with this scenario and instead always make up new arguments that do not related to things I have said. Attacking straw men, asserting things that I never said was not the case, refuting arguments that I never made.

I honestly dare you to give a cogent argument refuting or pointing out what is irrational about it

however since this is the 3rd time I've challenged you to do so I'm not expecting much.

kek >muh alfalfa male obsession

pathetic

>A single data point is hardly enough for a rational judgement,

what on earth are you talking about?
crime statistics are hudreds of throusands of data points.

You've deeply misunderstood.
> stats, physical context, social stereotypes, or whatever, is also determined by your own emotions (for example, if you were black yourself maybe you wouldn't give a rat's ass about those stats),

things like age, stature, body language are indeed things that would likely be relevent in appraising the risk of someone mugging you, however such data is difficult to systemise unlike crime statistics, so let's deal with the purest argument.


If you know from crime statistics that per capita the rate at which black people commit muggings is X and the rate at which malaysians commit muggings is X/2 and lets say bth groups otherwise have the same visual information (e.g. look about hte same age, about the same clothes) then what is emotional about evaluating the group of black men walking towards you on an empty street at night as posing twice the level of risk to you and so warranting twice as much caution?

you give an example of a lack person not caring and that may be rational (if mugging rates vary depending on race of victim, whether they think the victim is worth mugging) or irrational (if he's simply acclimitised to that level of risk). but in either case that does not effect our scenario where let us assume that the person walking by themselves at night is non-black and non-malaysian.

she's just a tinderslut

>in certain low information circumstances you may be more justified in being relatively more cautious around a member of a certain race
>therefore certain races are innately superior to others

Imagine that your example occurs between 1500 - 1900, the observer is an indigenous person, and the person walking towards you in the street is a european colonialist. Is racism against whites justified?

2/10 thread

yes.

Assuming that there exists some prior equivalent to FBI crime statistics indicating the risk that a white person walking down the streets poses to you compared with some other group of people.

I'm sorry, were you expecting that to be a big "gotcha"?
Unlike many humanities students and left wingers, I don't have trouble being logically consistent

You just made a giant leap there, and I'm honestly not sure you even understand that you did

All evidence is ancedotal, just with varying levels of precision.

It's like saying "war sucks in my experience" and you trying to dismiss it with "nah, that's just your ancedotal experience man".

So I experienced an actual instation of an issue in real conditions with real circumstances and that's not a valid experience because it butts against your ideal vision where reality fits the mold of an ideology.

well, that's humans for you.

instantation*

anecdotal evidence is a sample size of either 1 or a small number and is recorded in an unsystematic way.

that's why people don't hold it as high quality evidence.

OP here btw so I'm criticising you even though we're on the same side

>that's why people don't hold it as high quality evidence.
Indeed. Although really this is besides the point since niggers being violent thugs is amply backed by good quality statistical evidence.

Libs don't reason with facts, they act based on their estrogen-fuelled emotions.

They'll just ignore any "problematic" statistical data.

The things I would do to that robust Saracen nose...

I have thought the same exact idea as you, OP.

You are wrong. While you are indeed correct in claiming that a decision arising out of a bayesian analysis can be similar, or even the same, as a decision arising out of prejudice, your claim that therefore they are the same is not a valid inference. Let's take your example: such inference would indeed be justified and rational, however you're wrong in claiming it's racism. A racist person most probably doesn't have real numbers about crime by demographic groups, nor is making any kind of bayesian analysis, whether implicit or explicit, but it's simply arriving to the same conclusion out of a "I dislike X people, so I avoid them" thought process. Such thought process provides no epistemic justification, even if it arrives at a correct conclusion, unlike a bayesian analysis, something very few people do in such situations, even implicitly.

...

>FBI statistics are /pol/

Who are you quoting?

WHO

but is it really not racist?
>Here I am forming a pre-judgment that these people pose a greater threat to my safety than another group of people based on information linked to their race, therefore I am being racist.

consider the action reached at the end of teh decision is more explicit and concrete than simply "be cautious".
consider the situation of stop-and-searches for drugs, or monitoring for potential shoplifting:

certainly I acknowledge your point that there is a different between being prejudiced and discriminatory towards someone because of the race of their skin in an irrational way, i.e. only because you think "I don't like 'em"

But still it's perfectly possible, when you're in a situation where you have to make a decision under uncertainty with only limited information about the person in question and prior information relating to people in general with some matching characteristics, to be prejudiced and discriminatory to someone because of their race as a result of prior statistical evidence showing that their race is a risk factor.

and so because you are being prejudiced and discriminatory because of their race, are you not being racist despite being rational about it?

>consider the situation of stop-and-searches for drugs, or monitoring for potential shoplifting:
Which is completely pain free, UNLESS you are committing some crime

The problem is that, by definition, prejudice isn't rational, but an opinion that comes out of emotion, a gut feeling if you will. A prejudiced person (racist in this case), would be biased against black people no matter how new background evidence is added as a prior. For example, such inferences would no longer be justified if we know the subjects are upper class and study in an Ivy league university, yet a racist person would still dislike out of being black. We see similar cases to this in real life, for example people thinking that Obama was going to be a bad president because he is black, when the background evidence doesn't justify such inference.

Gut feeling is okay when trying to sum up the results of a lifetime of experience.

> if we know the subjects are upper class and study in an Ivy league university, yet a racist person would still dislike out of being black.

There are exceptional individuals in all races.

I'm not prejudiced against the individual. I'm prejudiced against living near high density concentrations of blacks. I've already done so before in my life and I will never do it again.

Most people only have their first impression before the other person constructs a model of their worth and psychology. Trying to preach "understanding" is retarded when you're dealing with people who have been in proximity to crime and disorder.

Not to mention more blacks rape and kill other blacks than all the other races combined. They are their worst enemy until they find a uniting ideology (unlikely).

Oh yes, so you're right, I always thought that prejudice meant pre-judgment for example making a decision concerning a person before you had a chance to know anything about them.

But infact it is defined as
>Preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience

and so I suppose using statistics in a rational way to make decisions about a person you don't know doesn't qualify as prejudice since you are using reason even though you have no experience of that person.


Ok, so as long as you're being rational about it , even though you may still discriminate on the basis of race, it isn't racist because you are not being prejudiced.

that's surprising.

>race
>race
>race
>race
>race

Fuck yeah man. There is a reason we're known as "White Devils" across a variety of different cultures and periods. The best thing the natives could have done would have been to kill my ancestors as soon as they stepped off the boat.

Good luck convincing someone that that use of statistics isn't racist though. They've completely destroyed all consistency with the word, and most definitely don't use the actual definition a lot of the time.

Which have literally next to no bearing in the situation he described, because of all the reasons stated above.

I'd say it's totally illogical to ignore the nuance of a situation, and live your life by the rudimentary guidelines set by a few correlational studies but hey, do you.

It does have bearing. You're adding in nuance that he deliberately excluded so as to distill the argument to one factor. He's saying "does 1+1=2?" and you're replying, "How can you be sure 1 is 1?" It's parallel to the argument at hand.

Actually a better analogy would be he's saying "Does 1+1=2?" and you're replying, "But the actual equation is (3x+y)(x^2-4)=z."

>As data becomes more available and more and more decisions will be able to be made in a rational way, how will liberals deal with the fact that certain forms of prejudice are rational?
and
>e.g. it is rational for you to be more wary of a group of black men walking towards you on the street at night than a group of Malaysian men because you know that the rate per capita of black people committing violent crime is much higher than that of east Asians.

You have two things to consider here: How much crime east asians and african americans commit as ethnic groups within the united states on average. Within these terms, yes, you are rational in avoiding the black men. But what the other user is arguing is that the more data you have, the less useful this pre-judgement actually is.

It's utterly pointless to try and restrict the argument at hand. Because the point is to speculate on situations where prejudice may be justified given the amount of information on hand. Yes, if we are to restrict ourselves to two correlational statistics, and know nothing else about them:
>African Americans statistically commit more crime on average in the US than any other ethnic group
>Asian Americans statistically less crime on average than African Americans
Then sure, it's in your best interest to be walking on the Malaysian side of the street, because you literally don't know any better. Why exactly are you arguing again?

Eventually you'll just be able to wear a scouted and tell people's power level at a glance, download their criminal record instantly, and do a generic scan of them to tell their predisposition for violence. You won't have to judge anyone based on race, but on other traits with stronger correlations and on an individual basis

titty fuck that blonde bitch silly

then skin her and wear her as a new suit

Common sense has been so heavily eroded that you can't even say blacks commit more crimes without idiots getting their "muh context" buttons fired off.

>common sense means what I want it to mean and only the context I like is relevant and applicable.

You do realize though, that that statistic is a piece of context? Or are you pretending not to?

I mean with facial recognition and google glass technologies both making their rudimentary debut, it isn't out of the question.

We're already offloading the effort it takes to make smaller, more widely informed decisions into technology -deep learning- now that we've pretty thoroughly outmoded physical labor. There are whole automated apps for investment portfolio modeling, for example. For the demands that modern society puts on us as we all vie to compete, even some kinds of decision-making will be too much effort to afford the invaluable resource of time to make. All that will be left is to evaluate what kind of decisions should be made at higher levels.

This is the semi-dystopian cyberpunk future I've been looking forward to ever since I first set eyes on William Gibson and K. Dick

>it is rational for you to be more wary of a group of black men walking towards you on the street at night

This is only true within a certain context though.

If you're walking at night through Compton and you're a white guy, yes you should be wary of your surroundings, but lets be honest here, if you're walking on the campus of Harvard University in the middle of the day and you see a group of suit-wearing black men walking towards you talking, you're not going to be very afraid are you?

I'm black and I completely agree with you.

Liberalism is on the way out anyway, we're at a political impasse.

>Your skin color does not make you violen

Race isn't just skin color. Literally nobody believes this.


>What about social domination, symbolic violence, social segregation, poverty and so much more factors that are particuliary important against certain groups of people?

The correlation between poverty and violent crime is spurious at best.
Ethnic segregation doesn't create violence or else icelanders would be the most violent people on earth.
Being socially dominated doesn't create violence or else the Coptic Christians in Egypt would be one of the most violent people on earth.

>The correlation between poverty and violent crime is spurious at best.

lol, kys