User:Langchri/sandbox
Evaluative diversity[edit]
Evaluative diversity is the degree to which different decision-makers in a population exhibit preferences for different forms of evaluation.[1] It is the part of neurodiversity which overlaps with moral psychology, which has historically held certain types of people as morally inferior.[2][3] It also overlaps with computer science because decision-making does not require neurons,[4] and this allows scientists to mathematically demonstrate some advantages this form of neurodiversity brings society.[5][6] Such advantages have also been explored through sociological experiments.[7]
Simon Baron-Cohen concluded that discrimination against Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism can be mere discrimination against evaluative diversity (in this case, against evaluation not swayed by empathy).[8] As other examples, evaluativism can include discrimination against creative people,[9] against empathic people,[10] and against conservatives.[11][12] Jonathan Haidt found it to have greater social impact than both racism and classism.[13]. It also has a long cross-cultural history with criticisms of particular evaluative types appearing in the Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, Tao te Ching, Dhammapada of Buddha, Analects of Confucius, Bible, Qu’ran, and peer-reviewed scientific journals.[14]
- ^ Santos-Lang, Christopher (2014). "Our responsibility to manage evaluative diversity" (PDF). ACM SIGCAS Computers & Society. 44 (2): 16–19. doi:10.1145/2656870.2656874. ISSN 0095-2737.
- ^ Wendorf, Craig A (2001). "History of American morality research, 1894–1932". History of Psychology. 4 (3): 272–288. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.4.3.272.
- ^ Verplaetse, Jan (2008). "Measuring the moral sense: morality tests in continental Europe between 1910 and 1930". Paedagogica Historica. 44 (3): 265–286. doi:10.1080/00309230701722721.
- ^ Wallach, Wendell; Allen, Colin (November 2008). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537404-9.
- ^ Weisberg, Michael; Muldoon, Ryan (2009). "Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor". Philosophy of Science. 76 (2): 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786.
- ^ Hong, Lu; Page, Scott E. (2001). "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents". Journal of Economic Theory. 97: 123–163. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2709.
- ^ Wilde, Douglass J (1997). "Using student preferences to guide design team composition". Proceedings of DETC ’97.
- ^ Baron-Cohen, Simon (2000). "Is Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism necessarily a disability?". Development and Psychopathology. 12 (3): 489–500. doi:10.1017/s0954579400003126. PMID 11014749.
- ^ Mueller, Jennifer S.; Melwani, Shimul; Goncalo, Jack A. (2012). "The Bias Against Creativity Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas". Psychological Science. 23 (1): 13–17. doi:10.1177/0956797611421018. PMID 22127366.
- ^ Glomb, Theresa; Kammeyer-Mueller, John; Rotundo, Maria (2004). "Emotional labor demands and compensating wage differentials" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (4): 700–714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.700. PMID 15327355.
- ^ Schreiber D1; et al. (2013). "Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans". PLOS ONE. 8 (2): e52970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052970. PMC 3572122. PMID 23418419.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author2=(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Brandt, Mark; Reyna, Christine; Chambers, John; Crawford, Jarret; Wetherell, Geoffrey (2014). "The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (1): 27–34. doi:10.1177/0963721413510932.
- ^ Haidt, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Evan; Hom, Holly (2003). "Differentiating Diversities: Moral Diversity Is Not Like Other Kinds". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02071.x.
- ^ Santos-Lang, Christopher (2014). "Moral Ecology Approaches to Machine Ethics". In van Rysewyk, Simon; Pontier, Matthijs (eds.). Machine Medical Ethics (PDF). Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering. Vol. 74. Switzerland: Springer. pp. 111–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08108-3_8. ISBN 978-3-319-08107-6.