Real Thing: CNN Says Math is Racist

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
September 9, 2016

If X is yo kilos uh rock, and Z is da numba uh hoes on yo chain, den C is yo muffuggen money, bitch.

The concept of statistics itself is racist, because everyone is an individual and pattern-recognition is a social construct.

Will you goyim ever stop hating people for the color of their skin?

CNN:

It’s no surprise that inequality in the U.S. is on the rise. But what you might not know is that math is partly to blame.

In a new book, “Weapons of Math Destruction,” Cathy O’Neil details all the ways that math is essentially being used for evil (my word, not hers).

From targeted advertising and insurance to education and policing, O’Neil looks at how algorithms and big data are targeting the poor, reinforcing racism and amplifying inequality.

These “WMDs,” as she calls them, have three key features: They are opaque, scalable and unfair.

Denied a job because of a personality test? Too bad — the algorithm said you wouldn’t be a good fit. Charged a higher rate for a loan? Well, people in your zip code tend to be riskier borrowers. Received a harsher prison sentence? Here’s the thing: Your friends and family have criminal records too, so you’re likely to be a repeat offender. (Spoiler: The people on the receiving end of these messages don’t actually get an explanation.)

The models O’Neil writes about all use proxies for what they’re actually trying to measure. The police analyze zip codes to deploy officers, employers use credit scores to gauge responsibility, payday lenders assess grammar to determine credit worthiness. But zip codes are also a stand-in for race, credit scores for wealth, and poor grammar for immigrants.

O’Neil, who has a PhD in mathematics from Harvard, has done stints in academia, at a hedge fund during the financial crisis and as a data scientist at a startup. It was there — in conjunction with work she was doing with Occupy Wall Street — that she become disillusioned by how people were using data.

“I worried about the separation between technical models and real people, and about the moral repercussions of that separation,” O’Neill writes.

She started blogging — at mathbabe.org — about her frustrations, which eventually turned into “Weapons of Math Destruction.”

One of the book’s most compelling sections is on “recidivism models.” For years, criminal sentencing was inconsistent and biased against minorities. So some states started using recidivism models to guide sentencing. These take into account things like prior convictions, where you live, drug and alcohol use, previous police encounters, and criminal records of friends and family.

These scores are then used to determine sentencing.

…Or consider the fact that nearly half of U.S. employers ask potential hires for their credit report, equating a good credit score with responsibility or trustworthiness.

This “creates a dangerous poverty cycle,” O’Neil writes. “If you can’t get a job because of your credit record, that record will likely get worse, making it even harder to work.”

This cycle falls along racial lines, she argues, given the wealth gap between black and white households. This means African Americans have less of a cushion to fall back on and are more likely to see their credit slip.

And yet employers see a credit report as data rich and superior to human judgment — never questioning the assumptions that get baked in.

In a vacuum, these models are bad enough, but O’Neil emphasizes, “they’re feeding on each other.” Education, job prospects, debt and incarceration are all connected, and the way big data is used makes them more inclined to stay that way.

“Poor people are more likely to have bad credit and live in high-crime neighborhoods, surrounded by other poor people,” she writes. “Once … WMDs digest that data, it showers them with subprime loans or for-profit schools. It sends more police to arrest them and when they’re convicted it sentences them to longer terms.”

In turn, a new set of WMDs uses this data to charge higher rates for mortgages, loans and insurance.

…

There’s a growing community of lawyers, sociologists and statisticians committed to finding places where data is used for harm and figuring out how to fix it.

She’s optimistic that laws like HIPAA and the Americans with Disabilities Act will be modernized to cover and protect more of your personal data, that regulators like the CFPB and FTC will increase their monitoring, and that there will be standardized transparency requirements.

…

“Big Data processes codify the past,” O’Neil writes. “They do not invent the future. Doing that requires moral imagination, and that’s something only humans can provide.”

Only a woman could have formed such a sentence as that.

Which is why the whole concept of women in public life is such abject retardation. They aren’t necessarily stupider than men (they do have lower IQs on average, but the main IQ issue is the differences in arches – women have fewer lower-than-average people, and fewer higher-than-average people), but because their thoughts are driven by feelings.

Cathy O’Neil: I’m sure she’s a very nice lady.

Honestly, it is a little bit surprising that using statistics related to poverty and crime hasn’t been made illegal yet. This woman’s argument is technically completely correct: there isn’t really any serious quantitative difference between judging a person by their race and judging them by their criminal record, credit score or socioeconomic status, given that these things align so directly with race.

And if we go from the starting point that race doesn’t exist, then the criminality, personal irresponsibility and poverty of the Blacks has to be the result of White racism. There is no other conceivable explanation.

So, yeah. I guess I can accept the idea that “math is racist.”

Of course, O’Neil’s assertion that if the government and institutions stopped using statistics to measure people in various ways, Black people would become successful is completely retarded. Because race does exist. It is a measurable biological reality.

Most importantly, Black people have significantly lower IQs than Whites. They also have 20% higher testosterone, which contributes to the lack of impulse control.

As such, there is no way to make Blacks succeed in White society, short of putting computer chips in their brains.