Skip to main content
Cross Validated

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • $\begingroup$ Why not also train separately? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 14, 2019 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ Would this not introduce yet another form of discrimination - men and women would be chosen according to different criteria. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 14, 2019 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe, but it would be worth a try. It could also make for better rules for men, not giving the machine the easy way out. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 14, 2019 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ "And then choose 50% from one group and 50% from another group." wouldn't that lead to positive discrimination when there is disparities in the original population (both in terms of number and profile) ? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 22, 2019 at 10:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Lcrmorin Yes of course it would. That's what they mean by "it would also discriminate based on gender but in another way." $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 22, 2019 at 11:23