Equivocation fallacy - bias, prejudice, discrimination and bigotry

A long article, The Psychology of the New McCarthyism by Lee Jussim. Worthwhile as a single essay drawing in many strands of the argument that postmodernist intolerance is societally destructive.

But reading it made me consider that the logical incoherence of the postmodernist critical theory left, the social justice people, is being exacerbated by a lack of language precision. I have not seen any conversation about this phenomenon.

We are using the terms bias, prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry as interchangeable with one another and then we are conflating all those terms with the unspecified concept of racism. There is a good reason that we use these terms interchangeably. Each of these words individually have multiple distinct meanings, at least one meaning of which is synonymous with other definitions. Biased and prejudiced both share an overlapping meaning but they also have unique definitions that precisely distinguish them from one another. For example, there is no prejudice in a data set but there might be a bias in that set (see below.)

Each of these terms has a precise meaning and by eliding them, we confuse ourselves and the pursuit of truth. Here are the dictionary definitions, all from Merriam-Webster.

Bias

a : bent, tendency
b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
c : an instance of such prejudice
d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

You can see why confusion arises, given this proper definition of "bias." It can mean dramatically different things, some reprehensible and others having no moral implication. In particular, it is becoming increasingly common to not distinguish the statistical meaning in d1 and d2. This is especially so when discussing IT algorithms and artificial intelligence. You increasingly see statements to the effect that the system is biased against one group or another or that the AI is adopting biased assumptions about groups. See here for an example.

When this claim is made, it occurs because there is a logical fallacy of equivocation (ex: all banks are beside rivers therefore my financial institution must be by a river.) Algorithms and AI are not biased (prejudiced) against particular groups. Algorithms properly respond to statistical deviations against the expected values and AI systems are recognizing patterns in the data associated with a group. The statistical bias might be related to anything and has no inherent moral content. The data for different groups may reflect a bias around savings rates, conviction rates, familial formation rates, probability of speaking at least two languages, height, weight, etc. A statistical bias in the data is a reflection of reality, not a moral judgment. To conflate the two is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

In conversation, the term bias is frequently used interchangeably with the term prejudice.


Prejudice

1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
2b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
2c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Definition one is a precise and narrow use of the term in the context of the law. That definition is frequently pertinent within the legal system but not much used otherwise.

The confusion in use of the term "prejudice" arises from a failure to distinguish definitions 2a and 2c. This confusion glosses over a very real issue. None of us are omniscient and therefore we are all, to a greater or lesser degree, operating before we have sufficient knowledge. It is a tautological truism. We are all necessarily prejudiced to some degree in that we cannot know everything. We act based on generic averages and gross assumptions in the absence of certain information. This is not a moral decision, it is a pragmatic necessity. The moral issue only arises when we fail to update our assumptions, opinions and knowledge when new information becomes available.

As an example, if I go hiking in the woods on a summer day, I wear boots and rugged jeans. My goal is personal safety and while I do not know that there are going to be snakes on my path, it is a rational opinion based on generic knowledge of snakes, their preferred environments, and past experience with hiking this path. That is an example of (2a) prejudice. 2c prejudice would be if I were to wear protective attire against snakes when I went ice skating, it being irrational to anticipate danger from snakes on ice.

In conversation, the term prejudice is frequently used interchangeably with the term bigotry.


Discrimination

1a : the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating * a bloodhound's scent discrimination
1b psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing * the film viewed by those with discrimination
3a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
3b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment * racial discrimination

Definitions 1 and 2 are very precise (but sometimes also used ambiguously) but I think the real confusion is between definitions 3a and 3b. 3a is a statistical and mathematical issue and is usually related to the absence of complete knowledge. For example: the category of snakes include many venomous snakes but also many non-venomous snakes. When I flinch from a snake that I encounter and do not recognize, I am discriminating categorically in the absence of individual knowledge of that particular snake.

3a discrimination is a form of heuristics - a rule which might be generally true but not necessarily specifically true (in all instances.) Heuristics reduce cognitive load by providing usefully true habits of behavior; useful in terms of either efficiency or safety. There is no necessary animus in 3a, only utility. However, while 3a discrimination can have great utility for the discriminator, it might exact a price on the individual being discriminated against.

3b, though, is far more morally ambiguous. There can be animus, in which case it is morally unsound. However, there are many instances in which we sanction 3b discrimination. We discriminate against people who are less than eighteen years old by preventing them from voting. We discriminate against young drivers by charging higher insurance premiums. We discriminate against "Unknown Caller" calls on our telephones. 3b discrimination is very context specific and often, but not necessarily, has some moral component.

In conversation, the term discrimination is frequently used interchangeably with the term prejudice.


Bigotry

1: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices: the state of mind of a bigot * overcoming his own bigotry
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot * racial bigotry * will not tolerate bigotry in our organization

Bigotry, in this portfolio of words, is the term most frequently associated with clear animus and intolerance. It is the most morally freighted word of the group.

In conversation, the term bigot is frequently used interchangeably with all the other terms - prejudice, bias, discrimination.

When doing so, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. All these words can be used to convey hostility and intolerance, but bias, prejudice, and discrimination have other, independent, and more precise meanings.

I think it is hopeless to change our habits of speech so that people distinguished the four terms by their differences rather than eliding their common elements. All we can hope for is that people of good faith can keep in mind that when a statement is made using one of the terms, that an awareness is maintained that bias, prejudice, and discrimination might be being used in their more precise definitions and therefore the statement might be less morally fraught than it sounds when we pretend all four terms mean only hostility and intolerance.

And even that hope is on pretty weak ground, given the assumption of good faith. True believers don't believe because of knowledge, precision and good faith. They believe, and they punish others, based on emotions and rhetoric. The Equivocation Fallacy, for those advocates, is not an error but a useful rhetorical tool.