“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Saturday 30 December 2023
Sunday 5 November 2023
If chatbots can ace job interviews for us, maybe it’s time to scrap this ordeal
It’s always been an unreliable process, so let’s think again about how to recruit the right people writes Martha Gill in The Guardian
In the evolutionary arms race between interviewer and interviewee, I think it is inevitable that both roles will at some point be played fully by robots. AI is already helping us to filter through CVs – one day, we will be able to leave chatbots entirely to it: everywhere, in pockets of cyberspace, one large language model will be offering another a seat and asking about the last challenge it faced at work, while we humans get on with something more useful.
We came one step closer to this utopia recently, when one – clearly quite brilliant – job candidate was revealed to be using AI to feed her answers during a Zoom interview. A phone app recorded the questions in real time and delivered “perfect” replies, which she calmly read off the screen, thus demonstrating innovation, resourcefulness, and a healthy disrespect for the whole interview process. I hope she gets the job.
This disrespect is, after all, long overdue. It may be time to get rid of the job interview altogether. Since at least the early 1900s, it has squatted in the centre of the hiring process, where it has revealed – primarily – that we like to think ourselves “good at reading people”, when in fact we really aren’t. We know this because the interview has been the subject of a swathe of research. And what has this research told us? In sum, that if one candidate outperforms another in an informal interview, the chances that they will do better in the job are little better than flipping a coin.
How do we get people so wrong? Well, one major problem is bias . How a candidate looks tends to matter more than it should – the beautiful always do better, even when the job involves data input or working for radio. People also tend to give jobs to those most similar to them in terms of background, gender, age and race (there are now attempts to train recruiters out of this, but biases are hard to shift). When recruiters aim to find someone who is a “cultural fit” for their workplace, this is often what they are doing, consciously or not.
People tend to give jobs to those most similar to them in terms of background, gender, age or race
Then, too, minds are often made up during the first few minutes of an interview, in the bit where you chat about the traffic or the weather, supposedly to get the candidate to relax. This suggests superficial qualities weigh heavily in hiring decisions, whether or not recruiters are aware of it. The firmness of a handshake can be used to predict offers, even when grip strength has little to do with the job itself. Apparently, this is in part because first impressions can dictate the direction of the rest of the interview. If recruiters feel apprehensive about a candidate at first glance, they might be inclined to ask them tougher questions, or look for evidence that their impressions are correct.
In his book Noise, psychologist Daniel Kahneman provides a telling example of this sort of bias. Two colleagues interview the same candidate, who explains that he left his last job because of a “strategic disagreement with the CEO”. But the colleagues interpret this differently. One, who starts with a positive view of the interviewee, takes it “as an indication of integrity and courage”. The other, who has formed the opposite impression, believes that instead it shows “inflexibility, perhaps even immaturity”.
This wouldn’t matter, perhaps, if interviews were treated as a relatively small part of the hiring process – the final flourish. But they tend to leave vivid impressions, which can override CVs, references, and even test scores. Yes – performance in one highly artificial situation seems to matter more than actual data.
Despite all this, employers are deeply attached to the process – they remain convinced that they cannot really “get a feel of a candidate” without it. Like driving or sex, we all seem to have a deeply held belief that we are good at interviewing. Structured interviews – where every candidate is asked the same question and evaluated according to an algorithm, rather than according to the guts of their interviewers – are better at predicting job performance but have been fiercely resisted by employers. They prefer to trust their intuition to tell them whether a candidate is right or not. They “just know”.
One answer, then, as to why the interview remains in the hiring process, is that it massages the egos of recruiters. I think that this might also explain another puzzle – a fad for off-the-wall questions that have nothing to do with the job.
Such questions have long infuriated job seekers. When in 1921 the American inventor Thomas Edison interviewed graduates at his plant, the questions included “Who wrote Home Sweet Home?” and “What is the weight of air in a room 20x30x10?”. “ ‘Victims’ of test say only ‘a walking encyclopedia’ could answer questionnaire” ran a headline in the New York Times. But, of course, the trend didn’t end there. “If you could be remembered for one sentence, what would it be?” Google once asked candidates for an associate account strategist position. Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, had this question for prospective bankers: “If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?”
Of course, one effect of such questions is to make a profession seem far more interesting than it is – thus flattering the interviewers.
But hiring is too important for this sort of nonsense; a nation’s success, after all, rides on the quality of its employees. Getting the right people into the right jobs is where fairness and productivity meet. We should start by making job interviews more structured. We could end by getting rid of them altogether.
In the evolutionary arms race between interviewer and interviewee, I think it is inevitable that both roles will at some point be played fully by robots. AI is already helping us to filter through CVs – one day, we will be able to leave chatbots entirely to it: everywhere, in pockets of cyberspace, one large language model will be offering another a seat and asking about the last challenge it faced at work, while we humans get on with something more useful.
We came one step closer to this utopia recently, when one – clearly quite brilliant – job candidate was revealed to be using AI to feed her answers during a Zoom interview. A phone app recorded the questions in real time and delivered “perfect” replies, which she calmly read off the screen, thus demonstrating innovation, resourcefulness, and a healthy disrespect for the whole interview process. I hope she gets the job.
This disrespect is, after all, long overdue. It may be time to get rid of the job interview altogether. Since at least the early 1900s, it has squatted in the centre of the hiring process, where it has revealed – primarily – that we like to think ourselves “good at reading people”, when in fact we really aren’t. We know this because the interview has been the subject of a swathe of research. And what has this research told us? In sum, that if one candidate outperforms another in an informal interview, the chances that they will do better in the job are little better than flipping a coin.
How do we get people so wrong? Well, one major problem is bias . How a candidate looks tends to matter more than it should – the beautiful always do better, even when the job involves data input or working for radio. People also tend to give jobs to those most similar to them in terms of background, gender, age and race (there are now attempts to train recruiters out of this, but biases are hard to shift). When recruiters aim to find someone who is a “cultural fit” for their workplace, this is often what they are doing, consciously or not.
People tend to give jobs to those most similar to them in terms of background, gender, age or race
Then, too, minds are often made up during the first few minutes of an interview, in the bit where you chat about the traffic or the weather, supposedly to get the candidate to relax. This suggests superficial qualities weigh heavily in hiring decisions, whether or not recruiters are aware of it. The firmness of a handshake can be used to predict offers, even when grip strength has little to do with the job itself. Apparently, this is in part because first impressions can dictate the direction of the rest of the interview. If recruiters feel apprehensive about a candidate at first glance, they might be inclined to ask them tougher questions, or look for evidence that their impressions are correct.
In his book Noise, psychologist Daniel Kahneman provides a telling example of this sort of bias. Two colleagues interview the same candidate, who explains that he left his last job because of a “strategic disagreement with the CEO”. But the colleagues interpret this differently. One, who starts with a positive view of the interviewee, takes it “as an indication of integrity and courage”. The other, who has formed the opposite impression, believes that instead it shows “inflexibility, perhaps even immaturity”.
This wouldn’t matter, perhaps, if interviews were treated as a relatively small part of the hiring process – the final flourish. But they tend to leave vivid impressions, which can override CVs, references, and even test scores. Yes – performance in one highly artificial situation seems to matter more than actual data.
Despite all this, employers are deeply attached to the process – they remain convinced that they cannot really “get a feel of a candidate” without it. Like driving or sex, we all seem to have a deeply held belief that we are good at interviewing. Structured interviews – where every candidate is asked the same question and evaluated according to an algorithm, rather than according to the guts of their interviewers – are better at predicting job performance but have been fiercely resisted by employers. They prefer to trust their intuition to tell them whether a candidate is right or not. They “just know”.
One answer, then, as to why the interview remains in the hiring process, is that it massages the egos of recruiters. I think that this might also explain another puzzle – a fad for off-the-wall questions that have nothing to do with the job.
Such questions have long infuriated job seekers. When in 1921 the American inventor Thomas Edison interviewed graduates at his plant, the questions included “Who wrote Home Sweet Home?” and “What is the weight of air in a room 20x30x10?”. “ ‘Victims’ of test say only ‘a walking encyclopedia’ could answer questionnaire” ran a headline in the New York Times. But, of course, the trend didn’t end there. “If you could be remembered for one sentence, what would it be?” Google once asked candidates for an associate account strategist position. Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, had this question for prospective bankers: “If you were shrunk to the size of a pencil and put in a blender, how would you get out?”
Of course, one effect of such questions is to make a profession seem far more interesting than it is – thus flattering the interviewers.
But hiring is too important for this sort of nonsense; a nation’s success, after all, rides on the quality of its employees. Getting the right people into the right jobs is where fairness and productivity meet. We should start by making job interviews more structured. We could end by getting rid of them altogether.
Saturday 19 August 2023
Thursday 17 August 2023
A level Economics: Convincing people of faith
ChatGPT
"You cannot convince the most ingenious mollusc that a thing like a whale was ever possible."
The quote seems to convey the idea that sometimes it's challenging to convince someone, even if they're highly intelligent or ingenious, about the existence or possibility of something that is far beyond their current understanding or experience.
In a broader sense, this quote reflects the difficulty of trying to persuade people to accept new, unconventional, or revolutionary ideas that go against their established beliefs or knowledge. It highlights the resistance some individuals might have toward accepting concepts that seem impossible or unfamiliar to them.
Here are some real-world examples to illustrate this concept:
Flat Earth Believers: Despite overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that the Earth is round, some individuals still hold onto the belief that the Earth is flat. Confronting them with scientific evidence might be akin to trying to convince an ingenious mollusc (a clever but metaphorically close-minded creature) that something as large and complex as the Earth could be round.
Historical Paradigm Shifts: Throughout history, there have been moments when new scientific or philosophical ideas challenged existing worldviews. For example, when Copernicus proposed that the Earth revolves around the sun, it contradicted the prevailing geocentric model. It took time for people to accept this heliocentric idea, as it was difficult for many to conceive of the Earth not being the center of the universe.
Advanced Technology: Imagine explaining the concept of the internet and smartphones to someone from the distant past. They might find it incredibly difficult to believe that something like the internet, which connects people around the world in seconds, is possible. It could be compared to trying to convince an ingenious mollusc of the existence of a massive creature like a whale.
In all these examples, the quote's essence comes through – the challenge of convincing someone of something that falls outside the scope of their current understanding, even if they possess great intelligence or ingenuity.
---Why not?
Why do certain individuals, even if they are intelligent and ingenious, be resistant to being convinced of new, unconventional or disconfirming ideas. There are several psychological and cognitive factors at play:
Cognitive Dissonance: People tend to seek consistency between their beliefs and their actions or experiences. Introducing a new, unfamiliar idea can create cognitive dissonance – a state of mental discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs. To alleviate this discomfort, some individuals may reject the new idea rather than reevaluate their existing beliefs.
Confirmation Bias: People often seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss information that contradicts them. When presented with evidence that challenges their beliefs, they might be inclined to reject it or find reasons to discredit it.
Anchoring Bias: This bias refers to the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions. If someone has a long-held belief, their initial exposure to a new idea might be anchored to their existing beliefs, making it difficult for them to shift their perspective.
Limited Perspective: Individuals often rely on their own experiences and immediate surroundings to make sense of the world. Concepts that are far removed from their personal experiences might seem implausible or even absurd.
Fear of the Unknown: Venturing into unfamiliar territory can be unsettling for some people. The fear of the unknown or the uncertainty associated with embracing new ideas can lead to resistance in accepting them.
Social Pressure and Identity: People often identify with certain groups and communities, and their beliefs become intertwined with their sense of self. Embracing a new idea that contradicts the group's beliefs might result in social isolation or a sense of losing one's identity within that group.
Lack of Tangible Evidence: Some unconventional ideas might lack concrete, tangible evidence, making them harder to accept for individuals who rely heavily on empirical proof. This is particularly true when the idea challenges established scientific or societal norms.
Emotional Attachments: People can develop emotional attachments to their beliefs, especially if those beliefs are tied to personal experiences, cultural values, or cherished memories. Dislodging these emotional attachments can be difficult.
Inertia and Habit: Human behavior is often driven by inertia and habit. Changing one's perspective or beliefs requires effort and mental energy, and some people might resist such change due to the comfortable nature of their existing beliefs.
In essence, while intelligence and ingenuity are valuable qualities, they do not necessarily prevent individuals from being resistant to new ideas. The interplay of cognitive biases, emotional attachments, social influences, and personal experiences can create barriers that hinder people from easily accepting ideas that challenge their existing worldview. This is why even the most ingenious individuals might struggle to be convinced of something that seems implausible to them.
---What if the mollusc was an average citizen and the whale was an economic panacea called growth led development?
If we reinterpret the quote with the mollusc representing an average citizen and the whale symbolizing the concept of economic growth leading to upliftment, the meaning becomes more focused on the challenges of convincing people about the potential benefits of a certain economic concept, especially if it's presented as a solution for societal progress.
In this context, the quote could be highlighting the difficulty of convincing everyday individuals about the positive effects of economic growth as a means to uplift society. Here's a breakdown of the analogy:
Average Citizen (Mollusc): Just as a mollusc is a simple and relatively uninvolved creature compared to a complex entity like a whale, an average citizen might not have an in-depth understanding of economic principles or the intricate workings of economic growth. They might have limited exposure to economic concepts and might not readily grasp how economic growth can lead to broader societal benefits.
Economic Panacea (Whale): Economic growth is often touted as a solution to various societal issues, such as poverty reduction, job creation, and improved living standards. In this analogy, the economic panacea is like the whale – a large and powerful force with the potential to drive positive change on a significant scale.
Exploring why it can be challenging to convince average citizens about the benefits of economic growth led upliftment:
Complexity: Economic principles and their effects can be complex and abstract. Explaining how economic growth can lead to upliftment involves understanding factors like job creation, increased income, improved infrastructure, and better social services. These concepts might not be easily accessible to everyone.
Limited Exposure: Many individuals might not have had substantial exposure to economics or may not fully comprehend its implications. The idea of economic growth as a means of societal upliftment might seem distant and disconnected from their daily lives.
Skepticism: Some people might be skeptical about the idea that economic growth automatically translates into improved living conditions for all. They might question whether the benefits of growth truly reach all segments of society or whether it primarily benefits a privileged few.
Inequality Concerns: Skepticism might also arise from concerns about income inequality and unequal distribution of the benefits of economic growth. If an individual perceives that only a small portion of society benefits from growth, they might be resistant to accepting it as a panacea for upliftment.
Alternative Beliefs: Some individuals might hold alternative beliefs about how societal upliftment can be achieved. These beliefs could be rooted in social ideologies, environmental concerns, or other factors that prioritize different approaches over economic growth.
Limited Empirical Evidence: In some cases, individuals might not have seen firsthand evidence of the positive impact of economic growth. If their personal experiences do not align with the narrative of growth-led upliftment, they might be hesitant to accept it as a feasible solution.
In this reinterpretation of the quote, the challenge lies in conveying the potential benefits of economic growth as a means of societal upliftment to individuals who might have limited exposure to economic concepts, varying perspectives, and different beliefs about how progress should be achieved. Just as an ingenious mollusc might struggle to comprehend the possibility of a whale, average citizens might struggle to fully grasp the potential of economic growth to drive positive change across society.
--- What if the mollusc was a believer in animism while the whale was Christianity/Islam?
If we reinterpret the quote with the mollusc representing a believer in animism and the whale symbolizing major organized religions like Christianity or Islam, the meaning shifts toward the challenge of convincing someone with deeply ingrained spiritual or religious beliefs to accept a completely different faith system.
In this context, the quote could be illustrating the difficulty of convincing an individual who adheres to animism, a belief system that attributes spiritual significance to various elements of nature, to accept the more structured and monotheistic belief systems of Christianity or Islam. Here's how the analogy can be understood:
Believer in Animism (Mollusc): Just as an average mollusc might lack the capacity to comprehend something as massive and complex as a whale, a believer in animism might have a worldview deeply rooted in nature's interconnectedness and spirituality. Their belief system is likely centered around attributing spiritual essence to natural elements like plants, animals, and natural phenomena.
Organized Religions (Whale): Organized religions like Christianity and Islam are vast and intricate systems of belief, encompassing theological doctrines, moral codes, rituals, and a structured understanding of the divine. The whale, in this context, symbolizes the enormity and complexity of these established faiths.
Exploring the challenges of convincing an animism believer to accept Christianity or Islam:
Worldview Clash: Animism emphasizes a holistic connection between humans, nature, and the spiritual world. Shifting to monotheistic religions like Christianity or Islam, which emphasize the worship of a single deity, represents a significant shift in worldview and belief structure.
Spiritual Significance: In animism, various elements of nature are considered imbued with spiritual significance. Convincing someone of the exclusive divinity of a singular deity in monotheistic religions might challenge their deeply held belief that spiritual forces permeate all aspects of the natural world.
Cultural Context: Animism often has cultural roots and practices that are closely tied to specific communities or regions. Transitioning to Christianity or Islam might involve leaving behind cultural practices that are deeply meaningful to the believer.
Faith and Tradition: Believers in animism might have inherited their spiritual beliefs from generations before them. These beliefs and traditions can be deeply ingrained, making it emotionally challenging to consider adopting an entirely new belief system.
Lack of Familiarity: The concepts, rituals, and teachings of monotheistic religions can be unfamiliar and even alien to someone raised in an animistic belief system. This unfamiliarity might make it difficult for them to connect with or accept the new faith.
Attachment to Natural World: Animism emphasizes a profound connection to the natural world. Switching to monotheistic religions might be seen as a detachment from this close relationship with nature.
Societal and Family Pressures: In some cases, societal and family pressures could strongly discourage abandoning one's ancestral beliefs for a new faith, particularly when animism is an integral part of their identity and community.
In this reinterpretation of the quote, the challenge lies in attempting to convince someone deeply rooted in animism to embrace the monotheistic tenets of organized religions like Christianity or Islam. The differences in worldview, spirituality, cultural significance, and personal identity can make such a transition profoundly complex and resistant to persuasion.
---What about the use/absence of evidence?
The use or absence of evidence is indeed a crucial factor that can contribute to the difficulty of convincing someone of a different belief or idea, especially when it comes to matters of spirituality, religion, or worldview. Here's how evidence or its absence plays into the scenarios you've described:
Believer in Animism (Mollusc) vs. Organized Religions (Whale):
- Use of Evidence: Monotheistic religions often emphasize faith and belief in the absence of tangible evidence. Believers are encouraged to have faith in the divine based on spiritual experiences, teachings, and traditions, even when empirical evidence might be lacking.
- Absence of Evidence: From the perspective of someone rooted in animism, the absence of empirical evidence for the specific theological claims of monotheistic religions might be a barrier to acceptance. Animism might have a more immediate connection to natural phenomena that believers can perceive, leading them to question the basis for monotheistic religious claims.
Average Citizen (Mollusc) vs. Economic Panacea (Whale):
- Use of Evidence: The concept of economic growth as an upliftment tool often involves presenting historical data, case studies, and economic theories to demonstrate its positive effects. Proponents rely on evidence of improved living standards, decreased poverty rates, and enhanced infrastructure resulting from economic growth.
- Absence of Evidence: Skeptics might resist accepting economic growth as an effective solution if they perceive a lack of concrete evidence that it benefits all segments of society. They might point to instances where economic growth has led to increased inequality or negative environmental consequences.
Average Citizen (Mollusc) vs. Christianity/Islam (Whale):
- Use of Evidence: Monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam often involve the presentation of holy scriptures, historical events, and spiritual experiences as evidence of their truths. Proponents rely on these sources to provide a foundation for their claims.
- Absence of Evidence: Those who come from a different belief system might find it challenging to accept the theological claims of monotheistic religions if they don't see the same evidentiary basis in their own belief system. The absence of tangible evidence for certain religious teachings might be a point of contention.
In all these cases, the use or absence of evidence can influence an individual's willingness to accept a new belief or idea. The availability and interpretation of evidence are essential components of persuasive communication. When evidence aligns with an individual's existing beliefs or experiences, they might be more open to considering a new perspective. However, when evidence is lacking or contradicts deeply held beliefs, convincing them to embrace a different viewpoint becomes more challenging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)