You did point that out twice but as I made very clear, I was referring to the players signed in Jan. As we all know, this was the first window post Scott Mitchell and one in which I'm assuming a different approach was used that relies more heavily on, ahem, aglorythms and less on traditional scouting.
Now I appreciate there are a few members on here who don't seem to understand nuance, so for the avoidance of doubt I am absolutely not accusing any member of the Wycombe team of bias, either conscious or unconscious. But given none of us on here know what datasets are used, how they're being interpreted or how comprehensive they are, I think it's a perfectly valid to point out a clear pattern in signings that appears to correlate with a well-established criticism of the fast-developing world of AI. Whether it's fair in the case of the data that the club use, none of us on here know. @flymofrank can post as many sneery comments as he likes but his knowledge appears to extend no further than a couple of articles he's found on the internet. And I doubt anyone has much more insight than him.
I think this is a bizarre comparison. I'd ask you to explain your thinking but, on balance, it's probably best none of us actually know what was going through your mind.
Again, this is a very one-sided view. There are concerns that AI algorithms may exhibit biases based on the data they have been trained on and the parameters specified by programmers, but AI also has the potential to be far more objective and fairer than humans, all of whom undoubtedly exhibit in-built unconscious biases (likely to a far greater extent).
Besides, we have signed Simons, who seems to be mixed race. And 5 out of the 6 players we released were white.
Moreover, I doubt you mentioned anything similar during the 2017-18 season when 8 of our 12 signings were black/African (Eze, Umerah, Moore, Thompson, Williams, Tyson, Ma-Kalambay, El-Abd). That was far more disproportionate to the general population than this January window, and those signings would likely have been made with more "human input"
surely you should know by now that most of malone's posts are him raking up old posts to humiliate regardless of how relevant they are
on the flip side though, as someone who works in AI and machine learning and is very aware of inherent racial biases in datasets, I'd love to know how you think it can possibly apply here, where AI isn't being used at all, just plain old data modelling.
Well, optics aside, we seem to have signed potentially exciting young players, some experienced loanees and a promotion winning goalie which, to me, certainly gives the impression that getting to the Championship is still an aim. If any of them actually make it onto the pitch any time soon...
The irony of the most sneery poster on here levelling that criticism at someone else. You don't know what you're talking about. Player recruitment doesn't work on aesthetic factors.
I think the rest was balanced and well argued too, in the sense that it shows that:
a) These types of imbalances aren't uncommon
b) You haven't looked into the full picture this season
c) You've only mentioned this potential issue when it goes one way
d) Even if there are "imbalances" in recruitment, there isn't a problem with it anyway because these players have rightly been signed based on their footballing attributes, just as they were in 2017-18 when those wonderful players took us up
I think your original post was unfounded, bound to provoke a response, and at least implicitly insinuated the potential existence of something that you have no evidence for
It is worth bearing in mind that correlation does not equal causation and that the same caveat that applies to the rest of the Gasroom vis not knowing the datasets also applies to you. It is equally likely that a number of players in a low cost part of Europe happened to be available due to seasons being ended whereas others flagged up by the glory rhythms (sic) were not available. If I were working on these models myself, I would certainly be checking against this issue.
Fwiw I think it's perfectly reasonable to make the observation that we've signed 11/12 white players and caution that there's always the possibility (AI or not) that unintended bias creeps into recruitment decisions. Any respectable company recognises this and takes steps to mitigate.
It may or may not be the case that some unintended bias influenced our recruitment process. I imagine it did not. Nonetheless, the original point made was simply that we should be mindful this can happen, not that it necessarily did.
It doesn't mean there is any overt racism, conscious bias or anything else resembling deliberate discrimination.
I think that any debate on the demographics of the squad and how it occurs is not appropriate for the gasroom. I appreciate people might have their own thoughts but that to me does not add any value to the purpose of these threads and only fuels people to put in counter arguments. Move on
It's the same old argument with comedy clubs , TV programmes and previously schools, doctors etc. I don't see any racism, why does it matter as long as they are talented, funny, qualified etc. Short answer is it doesn't matter if you are a white male who is employed, it matters more if you are black, unemployed and either considered too temperamental or lazy or something else sloppy based on prejudice, or simply not considered for roles because John is mates with Billy from the rugby club. Representation of black players is actually pretty good but it stops at coaching generally for a variety of reasons.
I can see why people don't want to get into it on a football forum but people who are indignant it can't and doesn't ever happen are more worrying.
Comments
I would assume something like this has already happened.
A certain volume of liquidity without any debt within the holding company.
Maupay and Watkins arrived at Brentford within one working day of each other.
Future Kones will come from our academy and will be eligible to play for Kazakhstan. That's why Lommy is here, not to make a profit.
Whats's to stop an owner gifting £100m, spending £40m, then withdrawing the remaining £60m?
Watkins still replaced Maupay in effect - they converted him
You did point that out twice but as I made very clear, I was referring to the players signed in Jan. As we all know, this was the first window post Scott Mitchell and one in which I'm assuming a different approach was used that relies more heavily on, ahem, aglorythms and less on traditional scouting.
Now I appreciate there are a few members on here who don't seem to understand nuance, so for the avoidance of doubt I am absolutely not accusing any member of the Wycombe team of bias, either conscious or unconscious. But given none of us on here know what datasets are used, how they're being interpreted or how comprehensive they are, I think it's a perfectly valid to point out a clear pattern in signings that appears to correlate with a well-established criticism of the fast-developing world of AI. Whether it's fair in the case of the data that the club use, none of us on here know. @flymofrank can post as many sneery comments as he likes but his knowledge appears to extend no further than a couple of articles he's found on the internet. And I doubt anyone has much more insight than him.
I think this is a bizarre comparison. I'd ask you to explain your thinking but, on balance, it's probably best none of us actually know what was going through your mind.
Again, this is a very one-sided view. There are concerns that AI algorithms may exhibit biases based on the data they have been trained on and the parameters specified by programmers, but AI also has the potential to be far more objective and fairer than humans, all of whom undoubtedly exhibit in-built unconscious biases (likely to a far greater extent).
Besides, we have signed Simons, who seems to be mixed race. And 5 out of the 6 players we released were white.
Moreover, I doubt you mentioned anything similar during the 2017-18 season when 8 of our 12 signings were black/African (Eze, Umerah, Moore, Thompson, Williams, Tyson, Ma-Kalambay, El-Abd). That was far more disproportionate to the general population than this January window, and those signings would likely have been made with more "human input"
I think you should have finished your reply after the first paragraph, which was balanced and well argued.
surely you should know by now that most of malone's posts are him raking up old posts to humiliate regardless of how relevant they are
on the flip side though, as someone who works in AI and machine learning and is very aware of inherent racial biases in datasets, I'd love to know how you think it can possibly apply here, where AI isn't being used at all, just plain old data modelling.
Well, optics aside, we seem to have signed potentially exciting young players, some experienced loanees and a promotion winning goalie which, to me, certainly gives the impression that getting to the Championship is still an aim. If any of them actually make it onto the pitch any time soon...
The irony of the most sneery poster on here levelling that criticism at someone else. You don't know what you're talking about. Player recruitment doesn't work on aesthetic factors.
Kevin Nolan doesn't know what he's talking about either
Seeing prejudice when there Isn't any proof of any basically.
I think the rest was balanced and well argued too, in the sense that it shows that:
a) These types of imbalances aren't uncommon
b) You haven't looked into the full picture this season
c) You've only mentioned this potential issue when it goes one way
d) Even if there are "imbalances" in recruitment, there isn't a problem with it anyway because these players have rightly been signed based on their footballing attributes, just as they were in 2017-18 when those wonderful players took us up
I think your original post was unfounded, bound to provoke a response, and at least implicitly insinuated the potential existence of something that you have no evidence for
Lol. "Most"
Wonder whose 2nd account this is
I read 'malone's posts' as 'post malone'
Was certainly a bizarre assertion from Mr Nolan either way.
Something about Pogue Malone
It is worth bearing in mind that correlation does not equal causation and that the same caveat that applies to the rest of the Gasroom vis not knowing the datasets also applies to you. It is equally likely that a number of players in a low cost part of Europe happened to be available due to seasons being ended whereas others flagged up by the glory rhythms (sic) were not available. If I were working on these models myself, I would certainly be checking against this issue.
So this is really @Malone!
No I'm more pre malone.
and I'm currently homalone
Not me sadly.
Whose second account is @aloysius ?
Fwiw I think it's perfectly reasonable to make the observation that we've signed 11/12 white players and caution that there's always the possibility (AI or not) that unintended bias creeps into recruitment decisions. Any respectable company recognises this and takes steps to mitigate.
It may or may not be the case that some unintended bias influenced our recruitment process. I imagine it did not. Nonetheless, the original point made was simply that we should be mindful this can happen, not that it necessarily did.
It doesn't mean there is any overt racism, conscious bias or anything else resembling deliberate discrimination.
Hate to think but what a shame to take the high of an incredible transfer window and create an argument from seemingly nothing.
I've come to the conclusion that some people talk a load of bollocks on here. Just enjoy the moment don't try to over think it.
All I’ll say is this was the first thing mentioned to me this morning by a supporter who isn’t white.
I think that any debate on the demographics of the squad and how it occurs is not appropriate for the gasroom. I appreciate people might have their own thoughts but that to me does not add any value to the purpose of these threads and only fuels people to put in counter arguments. Move on
It's the same old argument with comedy clubs , TV programmes and previously schools, doctors etc. I don't see any racism, why does it matter as long as they are talented, funny, qualified etc. Short answer is it doesn't matter if you are a white male who is employed, it matters more if you are black, unemployed and either considered too temperamental or lazy or something else sloppy based on prejudice, or simply not considered for roles because John is mates with Billy from the rugby club. Representation of black players is actually pretty good but it stops at coaching generally for a variety of reasons.
I can see why people don't want to get into it on a football forum but people who are indignant it can't and doesn't ever happen are more worrying.