So the alleged flaw in pg's reasoning is his assumption that the best applicants from two large groups of humans should turn out to create equally successful startups on average, if the selection process is not biased.
Is this really such an unreasonable assumption, given that pg restricts the applicability of his bias test to groups of equal ability distribution and that we can assume that both groups have roughly the same amount of capital at their disposal?
The question is if the "equal ability" qualification is sufficient to make sure the distributions are roughly similar. But that is not a mathematical issue.
The point of the post is to relax the "equal ability distribution" assumption. If the distributions are identical, any disparity in outcomes must be caused by bias.
Is this really such an unreasonable assumption, given that pg restricts the applicability of his bias test to groups of equal ability distribution and that we can assume that both groups have roughly the same amount of capital at their disposal?
The question is if the "equal ability" qualification is sufficient to make sure the distributions are roughly similar. But that is not a mathematical issue.