>But note the implicit bias in your own comment: you assume yourself and all the readers of the comment are not people who live in bad neighborhoods.

that assumption results simply from the need for 'bad neighborhood' to be a negative scoring action.

if you oversimplify it to get rid of 'implicit bias' (which I don't agree exists in the example), the results turn into near-meaningless babble.

"For example: It may be politically correct to do something that ignores statistical dangers in favor of the promise of human goodness, which may result in the possibility for more personal endangerment than other choices, but it isn't logically sound to ignore such statistics for the hope of a less biased personal experience."

The example requires the person driving to be detached from the bad neighborhood that they have a choice to drive through. How that isn't an obvious requirement for the example to have merit is beyond me.

That is not technically even true. If you live in a bad neighborhood it's still probabilistically better to drive home thru a good neighborhood than thru another bad neighborhood.

While there may be some bias, it is as much yours. Even people who live in bad neighborhoods avoid driving through them when possible.

Did you live in really bad neighborhood? I did. Out of two bus stops I always used one that required to cross two streets with no crosswalks. The other required to walk right through the middle of my lovely vicinity with 50% probability of giving something up to ‘charity’.