A meritocracy is a system in which individuals succeed solely on the basis of their ability. Of that much, I am certain. However, the first issue with this concept arises when we try to define ability. In the tech industry, does this mean good programmers? Communicators? Leaders? At what point do soft skills contribute to an individual's ability, and at what point do these intangible factors only contribute to people's perception of that individual's ability?
Imagine two candidates' resumes. One attended an Ivy League school, and the other attended a state school. Would a recruiter develop a preconceived notion of which candidate is more skilled? Is it merited? That recruiter does not know the situation that led each candidate to their respective schools. Perhaps they each got into the same colleges, but one could not afford to attend the more highly ranked institution. Perhaps the candidate who attended the Ivy League school was a seventh generation legacy with a building named for his family. Perhaps the state school candidate was accepted to the Ivy League school, but their declination to attend allowed the Ivy League candidate to be accepted off of the waitlist. With more situations possible than can be enumerated, I think it's fair to say assuming one candidate's superiority based off of school is not merited. That doesn't stop us, however, from associating one positive characteristic from another. This thought is echoed by Joseph Reagle in "Naive Meritocracy and the Meaning of Myth" as he writes, "So-called meritocracies reproduce extant members and favor incidental attributes; they are biased, susceptible to privilege, and unconcerned with inequitable outcomes." There's a technical term for this- the Halo Effect. The Halo Effect, researched and named by Edward Thorndike in the early 20th century, is "the way our own cognitive bias changes how we perceive the character or ability of an individual" (Vikus). Attractiveness, trustworthiness, and intellect are all intertwined in our brains whether we consciously realize it or not. We've all seen the articles on LinkedIn- "Size Does Matter: Tall Men and Slender Women Earn More Throughout Life", "Physical Attractiveness Bias in Hiring", the list goes on. In The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, Matt Ridley explains that we are, to a certain extent, genetically programmed to associate these characteristics for the survival of the species and of our line. It goes further than just genetics; however, putting pretty people on a pedestal is part of our culture- exogenetic heredity so to speak. The phenomenon of physiognomy- "assessing a person's character or personality from their outer appearance" has been discussed by philosophers as far back as the ancient Greek (Wikipedia). Even Aristotle discussed the idea of physiognomy, writing "It is possible to infer character from features" (Prior Analytics 2.27). Research on the topic recently began to spike again, aided by facial recognition software. Although physiognomy refer specifically to appearance, but you can substitute a number of features in- charisma, eloquence, etc. Considering physiognomy and the Halo Effect, if we all as humans have subconscious biases, how could we ever have a complete meritocracy? Until we find a completely objective way to measure ability, meritocracies cannot exist.
0 Comments
The Principle of Beneficence- do good. Ethical decision making would be easy if we could just leave it at that. The issue, as far as I see it, is not only in trying to decide what constitutes the greatest good but also in discerning what constitutes good as a baseline. Thousands of years discussing and debating have brought us no closer to resolving this foundational issue; discerning right from wrong will never be black and white.
My dad always told me I should be an engineer. "It's a way of thinking. A way of approaching problems logically. You have that." I guess he's right; the way I approach problems has always been algorithmic. If the situation is A then I respond with B otherwise respond with C. As much as I'd like to treat ethical decision making the same way, I think reading situations is too subjective. It's too easy to fall into the trap of ethical egoism- to think only of the greatest good for myself as an individual. In order to try to avoid this pitfall, I have a set of basic values I hold myself to when I consider an ethical dilemma. "There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. When you kill a man, you steal a life... you steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness... There is no act more wretched than stealing." - Khaled Hosseini, The Kite Runner The first standard I hold myself to is respecting the dignity of individuals. I read The Kite Runner in high school, and Baba's explanation of stealing as the basis for every sin has stuck with me ever since. When determining right from wrong, my first consideration is how my decision will impact others. What does it take away? What is the opportunity cost of my decision. "A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., The Sirens of Titan My second consideration builds upon the first. Respect is the baseline, but, as a Catholic, I'm called to take it a step further. I'm called to be a mirror of God's love to those around me. I chose this Kurt Vonnegut quote because, although emphasized by Catholicism, I believe this is a consideration everyone should make ("no matter who is controlling [human life]"). The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus Christ, in his words and actions, calls us to do even more. He calls us to treat others with the mercy and love of God. This is a big part of my faith and a big part of my ethical decision making. "If you have to look over your shoulder to check if anyone's watching, you're doing something wrong." - My Dad My third consideration deals with who exactly I'm considering in my ethical choices. To me, making an ethical decision means making a decision I'd feel comfortable standing by and taking ownership of regardless of who challenges me. It means being forthright and not sneaking around hoping no one will notice the choice I made. This consideration has a lot to do with my personal prayer life. Even if I make a decision that no one physically present will see, I know I will have to take ownership of it to God. God already knows my deepest motivations and desires, and praying helps me discern them too. To this extent, for me at least, morality and spirituality are two sides of the same coin. My name is Samantha Scaglione. I'm a Computer Science major with a minor in Engineering Corporate Practice. I know you're technically not supposed to capitalize academic disciplines, but just look at "Computer Science" versus "computer science." Clearly capitalization looks prettier. I'm mentioning this now because I will- from time to time- ignore typical rules of capitalization or grammar in favor of making the sentences look a little prettier. It feels more natural this way anyway.
In case you couldn't tell by the half a paragraph justifying my capitalization, I'm very detail oriented. I guess that is a part of why I chose to study Computer Science. I honestly didn't think there was any connection between the two until I happened upon an article that made me think about how Computer Science and attention to detail are related even beyond the context the author presented. What I mean by "attention to detail" can be summed up pretty easily- I like things looking their best, and I like things doing what they're supposed to do. I'll never forget the first day of my first programming class (pre-major switch), "Introduction to Computing for Electrical Engineers." We were writing and running a glorified Hello World that printed characters and integers. As our professor walked around the class to see how everyone was doing, someone near me stopped him to say "Mine isn't working." Our professor replied "Let's look at your code; the computer is only going to do what you tell it to do." The computer is only going to do what you tell it to do. A simplified notion for our first day, perhaps, but it was a powerful statement. I like knowing that if there's a bug in something I've written, it's fixable. Even if I have to scrap everything and start over, the computer is only going to do what I tell it to do. That mentality is kind of empowering, and it's a big part of why I chose to study Computer Science.. More about me- Activities on Campus: Club Coordination Council, Engineering Leadership Council, Wishmakers ND Favorite Class Taken So Far: Social Sensing & Cyber-Physical Systems Summer Internship: Full Stack Development @ MoreSteam Dorm Affiliation: Cavanaugh Hall Hometown: Port Washington, NY Zodiac Sign: Capricorn Although I'm a Cav girl through and through, I call Long Island, NY home. I like long walks on the beach and bagels and pizza and basically anything that reminds me of home. I love my dog, Belle, who is the cutest Maltese-Yorkie mix in the entire world. I like reading poetry in my down time (which I don't have a ton of). My favorites are Edna St. Vincent Millay and Walt Whitman. I also love to read novels and short stories which are more often than not by Vonnegut or Salinger or Fitzgerald or Hemingway. I'm not a snooty reader who only reads the 'greats," but, when I find a writer with a style I enjoy reading, I keep reading that author. I like watching "Romantic Dramas with a Strong Female Lead" (as Netflix reminds me every time I try to browse) and shows that are mainly on the CW or HBO. Speaking of HBO, I'm very excited to discuss Westworld and all the ethical questions it poses especially as we start talking about AI. (Also Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?/Blade Runner) I think the most pressing issue facing computer scientists and engineers today is figuring how and where to draw the line for data usage and privacy. I think the most interesting and controversial ethical issue facing computer scientists and engineers today is morality in the context of artificial intelligence- not just how to have self-driving cars answer the trolley problem but also what are the implications of developing AI technology. |
Archives |