Comment by jsemrau

> The solution should not be to change the data but educate that group to change their behavior.

1. This is easier to say than to do.

2. In reality what you see is a correlation. If you try to educate all 20 year old females to not become a connected to organized crime CEOs of construction companies, your efforts will be wasted with 99% of these people, because they are either not connected to organized crime or are not going to become CEOs. Moreover the very your efforts will lead to a discrimination of 20 years old females, if not due to public perception of them, then because you've just increased difficulties for them of becoming a CEO.

> The goal is to identify and flag fraud cases.

Not quite. The goal is to reduce the amount of fraud cases. To identify and flag is a method of achieving that goal. But policymakers has a lot of other goals, like avoiding discrimination or reducing rate of murders. By focusing on one goal policymakers might undermine other goals.

As a side (almost methaphisical) note: it is one of the reason, why techies are bad at social problems. Their math education taught them to ignore all irrelevant details, when dealing with a problem, but society is a big complex system where everything is connected, so in general you can't ignore anything, because everything is relevant. But education have the upper hand, so techies tend to throw away as much complexity as it is needed to make the problem solvable. They will never accept that they don't know how to solve a problem.

In practice, investigations tend to find the results for which the investigation was started. At the beginning of the article, it was also suggested that such investigations in Amsterdam found no higher rate of actual fraud amongst the groups which were targeted more frequently via implicit bias by human reviewers.

In North America, we know that white people use hard drugs at a slightly higher rate than non-whites. However, the arrest and conviction rate of hard drug users is multiples higher for non-white people than whites. (I mention North America because similar data exist for both Canada and the USA, but the exact ratios and which groups are negatively impacted differ.)

Similarly, when it comes to accusations of welfare fraud, there is substantial bias in the investigations of non-whites and there are deep-seated racist stereotypes (thanks for that, Reagan) that don't hold up to scrutiny especially when the proportion of welfare recipients is slightly higher amongst whites than amongst non-whites[1].

So…saying that the goal is to avoid penalizing people for [innate characteristics] is more correct and a better use of time. The city of Amsterdam already knew that its fraud investigations were flawed.

[1] In the US based on 2022 data, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiv... shows that excluding Medicaid/CHIP, the rate of welfare is higher for whites.