skip to main content
research-article

Our responsibility to manage evaluative diversity

Published:01 July 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The ecosystem approach to computer system development is similar to management of biodiversity. Instead of modeling machines after a successful individual, it models machines after successful teams. It includes measuring the evaluative diversity of human teams (i.e. the disparity in ways members conduct the evaluative aspect of decision-making), adding similarly diverse machines to those teams, and monitoring the impact on evaluative balance. This article reviews new research relevant to this approach, especially the validation of a survey instrument for measuring computational evaluative differences in humans (the GRINSQ). The research confirms the existence of all four known machine types among humans.

References

  1. John R. Alford, Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2005. Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American political science review 99, 2, 153--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Colin Allen, Iva Smit, and Wendell Wallach. 2005. Artificial morality: Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics and information technology 7, 3, 149--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Elwyn R. Berlekamp, John H. Conway, and Richard K. Guy. 2004. Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays, Volume 4. AMC 10, 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nick Bostrom. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Thomas Bouchard, and Matt McGue. 2003. Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of neurobiology 54, 1, 4--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Tim Dean. 2012. Evolution and moral diversity. Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Colin G. DeYoung, Jacob B. Hirsh, Matthew S. Shane, Xenophon Papademetris, Nallakkandi Rajeevan, and Jeremy R. Gray. 2010. Testing predictions from personality neuroscience brain structure and the big five. Psychological science 21, 6, 820--828.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. John M. Doris, and Alexandra Plakias. 2008. How to argue about disagreement: Evaluative diversity and moral realism. In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.) Moral psychology, Vol 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 303--331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of personality and social psychology 96, 5, 1029--1046.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jonathan Haidt, Evan Rosenberg, and Holly Hom. 2003. Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of applied social psychology 33, 1, 1--36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Brosl Hasslacher, and Mark W. Tilden. 1995. Living machines. Robotics and autonomous systems 15, 1, 143--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lu Hong, and Scott E. Page. 2001. Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of economic theory 97, 123--163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ryota Kanai, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth, and Geraint Rees. 2011. Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current biology 21, 8, 677--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawrence Kohlberg. 1973. The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of philosophy 70, 18, 630--646.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. James Martin. 2000. After the internet: Alien intelligence. Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Stanley Milgram. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of abnormal and social psychology 67, 4, 371--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Christopher C. Santos-Lang. 2014. Moral ecology approaches. In Simon van Rysewyk and Matthijs Pontier (eds.) Machine medical ethics. Springer, New York, NY, 74--96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Darren Schreiber, Greg Fonzo, Alan M. Simmons, Christopher T. Dawes, Taru Flagan, James H. Fowler, and Martin P. Paulus. 2013. Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLoS one 8, 2, e52970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Adrian Thompson. 1996. Silicon evolution. In Proceedings of the first annual conference on genetic programming. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 444--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lawrence J. Walker, Jeremy A. Frimer, and William L. Dunlop. 2010. Varieties of moral personality: Beyond the banality of heroism. Journal of personality 78, 3, 907--942.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Wendell Wallach, and Colin Allen. 2008. Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Michael Weisberg, and Ryan Muldoon. 2009. Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of science 76, 225--252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig A. Wendorf. 2001. History of American morality research, 1894--1932. History of psychology 4, 3, 272--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Douglass J. Wilde. 1997. Using student preferences to guide design team composition. In Proceedings of DETC '97. ASME, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Our responsibility to manage evaluative diversity

                    Recommendations

                    Comments

                    Login options

                    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                    Sign in

                    Full Access

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader