@Brian_BH do you know why side effect discrimination is even listed in this card and why past in present discrimination is listed in the side effect discrimination card? From my understanding these are unrelated and not really a compare/contrast scenario. I understand these are the two main types of discrimination we have cards about in the deck but they seem unrelated/easily differentiable enough that the definition for one doesnt have to be in the other.
No idea, tbh. It predates me by a good bit. Looking at the note history it seems to have been taken from some random slide:
For sure before my time. An amazing question would be what is that slide, and where did it come from?
In any event, the origin of that card’s phrasing seems to predate Ankihub, at the very least.
Any reason to keep the side effect discrimination info in this card? seems like these two types are different enough that they dont need to be displayed in the same card to recognize the difference.
I don’t see any strong argument in need of its retention. If it were some key detail, or highly relevant contrast, maybe.
Seems as much like an incidental relic as anything, and wouldn’t have survived inclusion with our current standards anyway
Yeah I agree. In general, I think the trade off of potentially seeing a concept in the extra section of a card that you may have an individual card for later is offset when the inclusion of the concept is necessary in terms of understanding or providing a clear contrast between seemingly almost identical terms. In this case I dont think its worth it ill remove.
Also lmk if you disagree. Ik it’s in that slide but I think its poorly worded:
Our current example of past in present discrimination as: An ethnic group continues to be recruited for inferior jobs doesn’t capture the concept well. This example could describe ongoing discrimination rather than a clear case of past-in-present discrimination and does not clearly align with the idea of neutral practices having a negative effect because of the past. I think something like:
Due to historical exclusion from higher education, members of an ethnic group are disproportionately recruited for lower-paying jobs today, even in the absence of explicit discrimination.
fits the concept much better.
Yeah, I think it’s fair to point out that the phrasing of the existing example is a bit flat. I’m not against tightening it up in a new suggestion
A lot of these terms are already easy to confuse, which is sort of a classic issue particularly with P/S so even little bits of clarity can be of outsized value sometimes