Sentences with phrase «how human biases»

A «3 Geeks and a Law Blog» post earlier this week discussed the matter of algorithmic accountability in legal research tools and how human biases skew the machines.

Not exact matches

Regardless of how disciplined, humans often trade with behavioral biases that cause them to act on emotion.

For Christians, there's a danger in how these conspiracy theories tap into an existing confirmation bias that all humans essentially have.

20This is not, however, to say that all interest is «biased» or «ideological» in the sense that it expresses, in Ogden's words, «a more or less comprehensive understanding of human existence, or how to exist and act as a human being, that functions to justify the interests of a particular group or individual by representing these interests as the demands of disinterested justice» (The Point of Christology [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982], p. 94).

To learn more, read Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children, edited by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland.

But what really matters, he believes, is getting at, «the implicit bias we are all guilty of,» how, «when a cop sees a black guy in a black neighborhood running away, that bias kicks in because they're human, like all us.»

«The surprise to me was more about human psychology and what we look for and how biased we are in what we look for.

Computers have revolutionized how humans play, because the computer doesn't have all the human baggage — the biases that we're taught.

Science journalist Shah reaches beyond biology to examine how malaria has shaped human history and how cultural biases have impeded its eradication.

The project is meant to both «expose the antifemale bias of the art world» and «uncover the complex workings of human perception and how unconscious ideas about gender, race and celebrity influence a viewer's understanding of a given work of art.»

Well, we humans have many increasingly well - understood biases and cognitive flaws that result in predictable errors in how we evaluate investment opportunities.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

How ideological bias can play tricks with otherwise rational human minds is fantastic.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

The video, featuring the science writer Joe Hanson, explores a vital body of empirical studies on human risk misperception, showing how a rational view of long - term or diffuse threats is obscured by «status quo bias,» our «finite pool of worry,» our tendency to value tribal connections over reality through what researchers call «cultural cognition,» and other characteristics of what I call our «inconvenient mind.»

Anyone who give due credit to the attributes of how humans reason, particularly someone who is knowledgeable about neuroscience, would recognize that determinations of who has «integrity» are inherently biased.

It pretty obvious to see how unnecessarily bias you are against wind farms, especially because your so proclaimed bird killers don't even make up a single percent of annual birth deaths from human intervention.

... In a recently published book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, the technically qualified authors (scientists all) point to four reasons: a conflict among scientists in different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.»

And strangely enough, it is science itself which has demonstrated just how biased scientists, and other human beings, are.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml Many of us who have studied and analyzed these assessments see something very different, a more biased and proactive role - to advise governments on how to counter (likely castastrophic) human - induced global warming.

It would be even better if the software was intelligent and was able to study all the data and learn about how the climate works without biased humans getting in the way.

Michael Graham Richard also wrote on TreeHugger about the human bias towards cute animals and how this is a problem for conservation.

Alarie: issues with quality of current decision making; mitigate heuristics into algorithms; implicit bias of judges; you control the info that you expose the algorithm to, curate the information; still problems, things may be correlated with negative things, e.g. racial implications, that we don't want related; gender, etc. other human rights type things; how to cleanse it appropriately; self driving cars just need to be better than humans; i.e. don't hold them to the standard of perfection; short term gains to be had

While Facebook's internal investigation supposedly found no evidence of this, it made stiff changes to how Trends were surfaced, and moved to a mostly algorithm - driven system to reduce the potential human bias.

Keep in mind that all humans fall prey to biases; we can't avoid being affected by them, but we can consciously choose how we respond to other biased people.

So how do you discuss human variety, acknowledge discrimination and bias — and celebrate our commonalities and our differences?

So, what the learned, but possibly biased (remember, the 50/50 rule pro or con here) Judge has publicly stated as reasoning for the continuance of Dale's suit is, in «my» own words, that... «In my mind (according to how I personally see things in my own biased mind (I am human after all) from my own psychological / political perspective re how I want to apply the wording of the law in this particular case), Mr. Dale has the «legal» right to continue with his lawsuit because I, being the sole judge of the presented facts and tactics of persuasion as presented by both sides in this dispute, side with Mr. Dale more so than with TREB and CREA for the following reason (s):