From: Randall Parker 

In article <392AD496.48BC6DC1{at}pacbell.net>, sdurrett{at}pacbell.net says...
> I can't think of any reason why they would be important at all. The
> moment public (or even private) policy starts being made based on
> "average" differences, individuals who do not conform to the
"average"
> get squashed.

While I'm strongly individualistic I also have a very biological view of
humans. As a result of that I see at least a potential problem with that
position. Let me give an example.

Suppose a person is a judge in family court making decisions about custody
issues. Suppose that (as I suspect is generally the case) the judge just
can't learn enough about two parents to make well-informed decision about
which one would be best to award custody to. Well, then the decision has to
be made on the basis of very limited information. Using information about
group averages (lets set aside the issue of just what that information is;
suppose it exists) may well, on average, increase the quality of the
judge's decisiom making.

I see the judge's problem as not unlike a gambler's problem: The gambler
who counts cards has a much better chance of guessing the next card than
the gambler that doesn't.

Or, to use a sort of less vice-oriented example: Suppose you have a choice
to walk home thru one of two neighborhoods late at night and you know one
of the neighborhoods has a higher rate of street crime. What are you going
to do? Flip a coin? Choose the more scenic route? Or choose the route that
gives you the best odds of making it home safely?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5