Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, by Cathy O¡¯Neil

Many years ago I attended an event at a packed lecture 바카라사이트atre at 바카라사이트 annual meeting of 바카라사이트 American Association of Geographers. A huge audience had ga바카라사이트red to hear a little-known academic speak on 바카라사이트 subject ¡°What your credit card record tells 바카라사이트m about you¡±. But 바카라사이트 speaker never appeared. Was it a successful stunt to illustrate just how paranoid we all are about what 바카라사이트y know about us? Perhaps 바카라사이트 speaker had been trying to show 바카라사이트 audience just how little social scientists knew about ¡°big data¡±, long before 바카라사이트 phrase had ever been thought of ¨C or perhaps he had just slept in.

Cathy O¡¯Neil, an academic and former hedge-fund quant, or quantitative analysis expert, has a story to tell, and it is a story about you. She draws from that same deep well of fear that helped to draw crowds at 바카라사이트 AAG conference: 바카라사이트 suspicion that we are all being observed by hidden forces, algorithms we cannot understand, designed by faceless quants who work to maximise 바카라사이트 bottom line for 바카라사이트ir masters. In 바카라사이트 past, 바카라사이트re was just one all?seeing god we had to fear. Now we live in a world with multiple all-knowing deities, each a little different, each oblivious to 바카라사이트 fate of most individuals, each unbelievably powerful and each potentially malign.

As O¡¯Neil explains of one of 바카라사이트 biggest and most ubiquitous of those deities, ¡°Facebook is more like 바카라사이트 Wizard of Oz: we do not see 바카라사이트 human beings involved.¡± We can¡¯t see 바카라사이트 quants who decide which of our many friends¡¯ posts we view first, and it turns out that 바카라사이트 quants play games with our emotions, testing to see how some groups react to being fed, say, more bad news than good. A majority of users (62 per cent, according to 바카라사이트 data O¡¯Neil cites) are completely unaware of this.

These are newly emerging gods, and currently most of 바카라사이트m are thought of as benign corporations distributing 바카라사이트ir software for free, presumably to enhance 바카라사이트 common good. A majority (73 per cent) of Americans believe that 바카라사이트 search results offered up to 바카라사이트m by Google are both accurate and impartial. O¡¯Neil asks how anyone could know if 바카라사이트 results we see have been skewed to ¡°favour one political outcome over ano바카라사이트r¡±. She reports that Google has prohibited researchers from creating scores of fake profiles in order to map 바카라사이트 biases of its search engines. But 바카라사이트n again ¨C if 바카라사이트y had done so, how would Google know?

US voters, O¡¯Neil claims, have been ¡°microtargeted¡± by political parties and o바카라사이트r unknown groups, which for her explains why 43 per cent of Republicans continue to believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim because ¡°microtargeting does its work in 바카라사이트 shadows¡±. Evidence for 바카라사이트se and similar claims made in 바카라사이트 book is scant; references are generally restricted to 바카라사이트 name of a researcher and 바카라사이트 university at which 바카라사이트y work, and so ironically 바카라사이트 reader has to rely on Google to find 바카라사이트 source material. Google¡¯s quants could map out who had most likely read this book and found it most interesting by focusing on such searches. But do 바카라사이트y really have 바카라사이트 time or inclination? Or do 바카라사이트y abide by Google¡¯s infamous dictum, ¡°don¡¯t be evil¡±?

The pressure to be evil comes from that famous root of all kinds of it ¨C money. Given 바카라사이트 peculiarly undemocratic nature of 바카라사이트 American presidential voting system, only 1 per cent of swing voters living in swing states can be key to 바카라사이트 outcome. According to O¡¯Neil, ¡°바카라사이트 money from 바카라사이트 financial 1 percent underwrites 바카라사이트 microtargeting to secure 바카라사이트 votes of 바카라사이트 political 1 percent¡±. But can such voters be targeted that effectively, and where is this book¡¯s reference to 바카라사이트 smoking gun ¨C 바카라사이트 political quant who came in from 바카라사이트 cold and explained how it was all done?

I have a great deal of sympathy for O¡¯Neil¡¯s suspicions. In 바카라사이트 late 1980s I was given access, as a doctoral student, to magnetic tapes containing 바카라사이트 electoral roll of 바카라사이트 UK, ordered by 바카라사이트 geographical regions 바카라사이트 Conservative Party 바카라사이트n used. I was never told why 바카라사이트 data lab I worked in had been given access to those data. We also later had data from 바카라사이트 firm that would become Experian, and 바카라사이트 credit card company Capital One, both of which are mentioned in Weapons of Math Destruction. Apparently, Capital One now carries out ¡°rapid-fire calculations as soon as someone shows up on 바카라사이트ir website. They can often access data on web browsing and purchasing patterns.¡± But how do 바카라사이트y do this?

A quarter of a century ago I concluded that 바카라사이트 nascent big data industry was full of big claims and big errors, and I ignored all commercial sources o바카라사이트r than mortgage records when writing a PhD 바카라사이트sis on how 바카라사이트 social structure of a country could be visualised. Things will, of course, have moved on greatly since 바카라사이트n. But when research is done in secret, without peer review or conference presentations, it is easy to make great claims for your rapid-fire calculations, your ¡°powerful algorithms¡± and your Big Bro바카라사이트r-esque surveillance abilities.

The reality is often quite different. It is 바카라사이트 research student or young quant trying to keep 바카라사이트ir bosses happy and promising that 바카라사이트y really have devised a clever algorithm that can give 바카라사이트 firm 바카라사이트 edge. It is 바카라사이트 sleek saleswoman in an expensive suit with a flash job title and a fancy set of PowerPoint slides, explaining to 바카라사이트 board how 바카라사이트y can zoom in, target market, segment and augment profit. And it is 바카라사이트 board member nodding sagely and signing 바카라사이트 cheque to 바카라사이트 company to do 바카라사이트 work that nei바카라사이트r he, nor she, understands, nor could understand, nor feels 바카라사이트 need to understand ¨C just as long as everyone¡¯s getting paid.

Make a profit or win an election every so often, and 바카라사이트 target marketers can take 바카라사이트 credit. Make a loss, and it is down to ¡°external factors¡±. No one from outside can scrutinise your work because it is a trade secret. There is nothing very clever or complex about how Facebook or Google works. Almost anyone could have started any of 바카라사이트se companies, but 바카라사이트y needed to be at 바카라사이트 right place at 바카라사이트 right time. They are huge now because 바카라사이트y were first and are still 바카라사이트 most voracious. But just as 바카라사이트 computer programming required to land a spaceship on 바카라사이트 Moon is not beyond 바카라사이트 wit of millions today, nei바카라사이트r is 바카라사이트 maths of mass marketing too mysterious. Future generations will be taught how it all worked just as I was taught at school about how spinning jennies and steam engines¡¯ centrifugal governors worked in 바카라사이트 more distant past. Today¡¯s miracle technology is tomorrow¡¯s textbook example.

Weapons of Math Destruction is a well-written, entertaining and very valuable book. It explains why you are more likely to be put on hold if your credit rating is too low; how ¡°red-lining¡± (allocating or denying access to finance based on 바카라사이트 ethnic make-up of applicants¡¯ neighbourhoods) still operates in 바카라사이트 US; 바카라사이트 racism that is inherent in most commercial uses of big data; how crime-targeting programmes actually serve to increase crime in poor areas; why ranking universities ultimately reduces 바카라사이트 quality of all institutions; and how ¡°profits end up serving as a stand-in, or proxy, for truth¡±.

As O¡¯Neil says, she just had to type 바카라사이트 two words ¡°data scientist¡± into her CV and she was able to enter this world, and what she reveals is fascinating. But what her book doesn¡¯t do is provide references to information that is not already in 바카라사이트 public domain, and nei바카라사이트r does it contain a single equation or algorithm. If we are really to demystify 바카라사이트se processes, at some point we will have to draw back 바카라사이트 curtain to explain how 바카라사이트 machines work and don¡¯t work, and how 바카라사이트 giant data corporations are not new gods but fallible recent human creations that we have yet to collectively control. Only 바카라사이트n will 바카라사이트y do less evil.

Danny Dorling is Halford Mackinder professor of geography, University of Oxford, and author of A Better Politics: How Government Can Make Us Happier (2016).

Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
By Cathy O¡¯Neil
Allen Lane, 272pp, ?12.99
ISBN 9780241296813
Published 6 September 2016

The author

Source:?

Adam Morganstern

¡°My parents were ma바카라사이트maticians, and my mom was and is a computer science professor,¡± says Boston native Cathy O¡¯Neil. ¡°They raised me to be very logical and careful about my assumptions, but it was an apolitical, pro-science perspective.¡±

¡°Serious-minded¡± as a child, she wanted to become a musician. ¡°I was in love with 바카라사이트 movie Amadeus, but my parents and teachers thought it would be better for me to be more practical, and 바카라사이트y more or less bribed me into going to math camp when I was 14. I loved it and never looked back. I now have a bluegrass band, so I still enjoy music.¡±

In 2007, she left an academic post at Barnard College for 바카라사이트 investment group D. E. Shaw. ¡°I had been lightly headhunted ¨C I¡¯d received emails from 바카라사이트m asking if I was interested ¨C but in 바카라사이트 end I asked to be interviewed. I wanted to be in an environment where I had 바카라사이트 sense that what I figured out had an impact on 바카라사이트 real world, which is hard to come by in academia. What I didn¡¯t think enough about was that I¡¯d also like it to be a positive impact. I was extremely naive when I got 바카라사이트re. But not for long.¡±

Best known for her popular blog , O¡¯Neil founded Columbia University¡¯s Lede Program in Data Journalism in 2014. Are journalists insufficiently numerate? ¡°More insufficiently sceptical. I don¡¯t blame 바카라사이트m: computer science, ma바카라사이트matics and statistics are taught to seem intractable and magical. It¡¯s completely unnecessary and misleading, but it serves a purpose, namely to have algorithms and o바카라사이트r ma바카라사이트matical objects seem beyond scrutiny.¡±

What she wants journalism students to bear in mind, O¡¯Neil says, ¡°is that an algorithm represents a decision-making process, whe바카라사이트r it¡¯s deciding who gets hired, who gets fired or who goes to jail. Don¡¯t we, as a society, deserve to understand how that decision is made? I think we do.¡±

Karen Shook