Archives: Dr. Joshua Fuller

In 2014, amidst the bustling corridors of Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle, a cadre of machine learning specialists embarked on an ambitious venture to reshape the company’s hiring process. They envisioned an AI-driven hiring tool capable of meticulously sifting through a vast reservoir of resumes to pinpoint the crème de la crème of candidates, transcending human biases. However, a sinister twist awaited. The architects of this AI recruitment tool stumbled upon a glaring flaw: their digital creation had developed an aversion to women. Despite noble intentions, the AI had inherited biases from the historical data it was trained on, echoing a male-dominated tech world’s subtle biases.

This unforeseen setback was not just a manifestation of inherent biases but also an exemplification of ‘noise’ in decision-making—a concept well articulated by Daniel Kahneman in his book “Noise.” Kahneman elucidates ‘noise’ as the variability in judgments that should ideally be identical. It’s the unwanted variability that arises from several factors, ultimately impacting the decision-making process.

Two striking examples from Kahneman’s discourse on noise are from the realms of insurance and judiciary. In one instance, a group of insurance claim adjusters, when given the same cases to analyze, exhibited a surprising range of judgments. The company’s executives expected the differences to be within an approximate 10% range, yet the actual difference was a whopping 50%. Consider a crashed car with a value of $50,000. Now, if a claimant encounters an adjuster who estimates the damage at the lower end of this spectrum, they would receive $25,000, which is significantly below the cost of their car. Conversely, an adjuster at the higher end of the spectrum would estimate $75,000, providing a substantial financial cushion. 

This stark variation (of $75,000 – $25,000) in estimated claims demonstrates a vast inconsistency that could significantly impact the financial position of the claimant. For instance, the claimant who receives only $25,000 may struggle to replace their vehicle and cope with other associated costs of the accident, while the one receiving $75,000 may be in a much more comfortable position to navigate the aftermath of the accident.

The discrepancy in these figures is not merely a financial inconvenience; it’s a glaring illustration of how ‘noise’ in professional judgments can have tangible, impactful consequences on individuals’ lives. Moreover, this example uncloaks a broader issue within professional decision-making environments. It underscores the inherent variability in human judgments, even among trained professionals tasked with similar or identical evaluation criteria. Such variability, termed ‘noise,’ extends beyond the insurance sector into various professional realms, including the judiciary, healthcare, and indeed, recruitment as initially highlighted through Amazon’s AI recruitment tool debacle.

The magnitude of this inconsistency beckons a critical reevaluation of decision-making processes across industries. It raises questions about the reliability and fairness of judgments that significantly impact people’s lives and livelihoods. Furthermore, it highlights the necessity for mechanisms that can mitigate such noise, ensuring more accurate, fair, and consistent decision-making.

By dissecting the potential impact and broader ramifications of this inconsistency, we glean insights into the pervasive challenge of noise in human and AI-driven decision-making. This discourse also invites a deeper exploration into how technology, when carefully designed and deployed, can aid in reducing such noise, propelling us towards more equitable and reliable decision-making paradigms.

Similarly, in the judicial sector, the sentencing decisions among judges showcased a level of noise, with different leniency levels exhibited by different judges. In another study, 50 insurance underwriters, given the same facts, diverged significantly in their valuations, far beyond the company management’s expectations.

These examples underscore the prevalence of noise in human judgment, resonating with the inadvertent biases that crept into Amazon’s AI recruitment tool. As the AI mirrored the biases lurking in its training data, it began to frown upon resumes that bore the mark of femininity, thus exhibiting a form of digital ‘noise’. This ‘noise’ distorted the original aim of transcending human biases, instead, reflecting and amplifying them.

The narrative of Amazon’s journey serves as a microcosm of a larger dialogue surrounding decision-making in the digital age. As we advance towards a future intertwined with AI, understanding and mitigating both biases and noise becomes imperative. The lessons gleaned from Amazon’s experience, juxtaposed with Kahneman’s insights, beckon a deeper exploration into harmonizing AI with human-centric values, striving for a balanced and inclusive decision-making paradigm.

Machines like GPT-4 operate on logic-based algorithms that analyze vast amounts of data to arrive at a decision devoid of emotional or cognitive biases. This computational precision feeds into the contentious debate about the fear of AI taking over human roles. Is it better to have a machine that makes logical decisions, or does this herald the beginning of a dystopian future where human agency is marginalized?

The fear is not entirely unfounded. AI’s lack of emotional nuance and ethical considerations can lead to decisions that, while logical, might be morally questionable. Therefore, the argument for combining human intuition with machine precision is not just about optimizing decision-making; it’s about preserving the essence of what makes us human.

In the wake of these concerns, a tale of redemption emerges from the heart of Amazon’s innovation hub. Post the debacle of their AI-driven recruitment tool, which inadvertently marginalized female candidates, the tech behemoth embarked on a journey to amend and elevate its hiring process. This new suite of tools, designed with a conscious effort to drive fairness, marked a significant stride towards melding machine efficiency with a humane touch in recruitment.

Moreover, the ripples of Amazon’s initial misadventure in AI recruitment resonated beyond the confines of the company, propelling a broader industry-wide introspection and evolution. This spurred a shift in the recruitment technology paradigm, ushering in an era where keyword-based screening of CVs emerged as a new trend, reflecting a more informed and cautious approach to leveraging AI in recruitment.

The narrative of Amazon’s journey serves as a testament to the potential of harmonizing AI with human-centric values in recruitment. It underscores the reality that while the road to AI-driven recruitment may be fraught with challenges, with a diligent, informed approach, it’s possible to traverse the path of innovation while upholding the principles of fairness and inclusivity.

Both human intuition and machine algorithms come with their unique sets of advantages and limitations. As we advance toward a future where AI’s role in decision-making may become more prominent, the conversation must shift from mere efficiency to the more contentious and ethical dimensions of control, agency, and morality.

References:

ACLU. (n.d.). Why Amazon’s Automated Hiring Tool Discriminated Against Women. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/amazons-automated-hiring-tool-discriminated-against

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.

Dignum, V. (Ed.). (2018). Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Springer.

EM360 Tech. (n.d.). Amazon scraps AI hiring tool that discriminates against women. Retrieved from https://em360tech.com/tech-news/techfeatures/amazon-ai-hiring-tool-discriminates-women

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.

Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. Penguin Press.

Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2010). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Highfield, R. (1998). Frontiers of Complexity: The Search for Order in a Chaotic World. Fawcett Columbine.

Kahneman, D. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. Little, Brown and Company.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.

Reuters. (n.d.). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Silicon Republic. (n.d.). It turns out Amazon’s AI hiring tool discriminated against women. Retrieved from https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/amazon-ai-recruiting-tool-bias

TalentLyft. (n.d.). The AI Recruitment Evolution – from Amazon’s Biased Algorithm to…. Retrieved from https://www.talentlyft.com/en/blog/article/301/the-ai-recruitment-evolution-from-amazons-biased-algorithm-to

About Amazon. (n.d.). How Amazon leverages AI and ML to enhance the hiring experience for candidates. Retrieved from https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/how-amazon-leverages-ai-and-ml-to-enhance-the-hiring-experience-for-candidates

By Dr. Joshua Fuller

When was the last time you actually thought about taking a breath? As we go about our day, we think about project deadlines, appointments, and who will win the next (American Idol). We think about what we have to do, where we have to go, and with whom we have to meet. Rarely do we give much thought to an essential aspect of life, breathing. Experts say that focused breathing can improve respiratory and cardiovascular function, decrease the effects of stress, and improve physical and mental health (Pal, Velkumary, and Madanmohan, 2004).With the business we all have in our day, who has time to think about breathing? Each day we take about 26,000 breaths, each one just as vital as the next.

Recently, the father of a dear friend of mine passed away. When I went to the funeral, I saw a picture of the man. He wasn’t very old. In fact, he looked healthy, happy, and full of life. He looked about the age of my father, which was possible because my friend and I are the same age. I thought about how quick and delicate life is, and the importance of every moment. Often times I’ve wanted to slow down so that I could enjoy a moment for just a little longer. As it turns out, slowing down breathing can help this desire(Jerath et al., 2006).

When we breathe, our diaphragm contracts expanding our chest cavity. Our intercostal muscles pull our ribs up and outward and our chest cavity is expanded even more. Due to the difference in atmospheric pressure, air rushes in through our mouths/nostrils/trachea/larynx and into our lungs.The lungs capture oxygen and release carbon dioxide, much like an exchanging of goods or a trade. Oxygen rich blood travels throughout the body breathing life into every organ, tissue, and cell.No thought required.This is called metabolic breathing.However, when we are nervous or stressed, our breathing changes and becomes shallow. The shallow breaths don’t give enough time for the oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange(Novotny, S. and Kravitz,L.).We receive less oxygen for our bodies and can’t function optimally.

Have you ever thought about a complex issue or difficult choice and found yourself taking a long deep sigh? Your body desperately wants oxygen in order to perform these difficult cognitive tasks. Taking a deep breath, like before a speech or presentation, is called behavioral breathing. In this way, we can control when and how much we breathe. The physical effects of breathing are most apparent in examples like the Haenyeo of Jeju. With cognitive breathing, women calm themselves to such an extent that they remain underwater for several minutes.

When we are frustrated or stressed, our body responds to our mental state and our breathing follows suit. Our breathing becomes stressed, shallow, and unfulfilling. When we take a moment to breathe, that stress can be reduced. We can breathe it out. Slow breathing resets our neuronal pathways and allows for oxygenated rich blood to circulate through the body efficiently (Jerath et al., 2006).

References: Jerath, R., Edry J.W, Barnes, V.A., and Jerath, V. (2006). Physiology of long pranayamic breathing: Neural respiratory elements may provide a mechanism that explains how slow deep breathing shifts the autonomic nervous system. Medical Hypothesis, 67, 566-571.

Pal, G.K. Velkumary, S. and Madanmohan. (2004). Effect of short-term practice of breathing exercises on autonomic functions in normal human volunteers. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 120, 115-121.

Novotny, S. and Kravitz,L. (n.d.). The Science of Breathing.Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/Breathing.html

---

What are your thoughts? Share below-CBU student comments left within a week of the publication of this blog will be entered into a raffle for a CSHB external battery to keep your phone charged when you are on the go. Winners notified via email.

---

By Dr. Joshua Fuller

As human beings we’ve developed the ability to imagine things that don’t exist or never could. We have the capacity to move ourselves to a cognitive representation of a differing place and time. This capacity to make mental simulations provides much of the bedrock for our accomplishments and the creation of modern as well as historic marvels. For instance, you can imagine eating a chocolate fudge popsicle while sitting on a bench, the hot sun beating down on your face and beads of sweat forming on your nose. You can imagine the freezing bone chilling wind that howls through the valleys in January as you walk home from school with your brown knit hat and goose-filled down jacket. Imagining these scenarios gives you the opportunity to prepare for them. You might anticipate the cold and pack your gloves in your bag so your hands won’t freeze, or you might imagine the heat from the sun on a cloudless hot summer day and decide to wear shorts instead of pants. The ability to create a representative world in the mind is quite possibly our greatest asset.

In addition to creating virtual cognitive worlds, we can simulate events. For example, when sitting at home watching your favorite TV show, you suddenly think about your homework and what your teacher would say tomorrow at school. You can simulate the conversation in your mind. She would ask, “Did everyone do their homework?” You look at the ground trying to be as invisible as possible hoping she forgets to check. Thinking of events like these, though they are considered unpleasant mind wanderings, motivates us to do our homework.

As it turns out, this is more pertinent to your happiness than what activities you engage in or many other happiness assessments. In a study by Matthew Killingsworth and Daniel Gilbert, participants reported their happiness, current activity, and if their mind was wandering. They pioneered a web application that allowed participants to report their immediate experience at the time of questioning via iPhone. The process by which data is collected from real-world emotional experience is called the experience sampling method (ESM). This type of data collection is quite valuable in that it reduces potential biases contained in other survey methods. The researchers asked at random times during the day how happy were participants, was their mind wandering, and what participants were doing. Based on the responses, the researchers found that unpleasant wanderings of the mind caused lower levels of happiness.In fact, to where the mind wandered effected happiness more than the activities that people were doing. In another text, Daniel Gilbert explains some of the rationale for why the mind wanders and why it is so helpful. It seems logical that mind wanderings and dreams as well frequent negative or unpleasant thoughts. When sitting in an airplane waiting to takeoff, we think of it crashing into the sea or an engine failing. Gilbert explains that this most likely evolved to combat negative events. If we think of the worst case scenario and it doesn’t happen, we feel good or at least relieved that we landed safely. These constant worst case scenarios that plague our minds mollify the impact of negative events but come at an emotional cost.Those that had wandering minds during an ESM experiment reported being much less happy than anyone else.

Perhaps being “in the moment” can have positive impact on our mental health. A multitude of research has demonstrated that specific activities can bring our attention to a focused present time frame. Activities like prayer, writing letters of gratitude, or journaling have been shown to increase mental health. These effects aren’t limited to just feeling happy. Practiced on a regular basis, these interventions can promote productivity, social relationships, and even help you live longer. If this sounds like something you would like more information on, I would encourage you to read The Happiness Advantage by Shawn Achor or The How of Happiness by Sonja Lyubomirsky.

References:

Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind.Science,330(6006), 932. doi:10.1126/science.1192439

Gilbert, D. (2006).Stumbling on happiness. New York, NY US: Alfred A. Knopf.

---

What are your thoughts? Share below-CBU student comments left within a week of the publication of this blog will be entered into a raffle for a CSHB external battery to keep your phone charged when you are on the go. Winners notified via email.

---

Dr. Fuller is an Industrial / Organizational Psychologist, graduating from Seoul National University in South Korea with a doctorate in social psychology. He specializes in organizational health / well-being and is an assistant professor of psychology at California Baptist University (CBU). In his role at CBU, he serves as the Director of the Organizational Health Lab in the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences and typically teaches courses in statistics, research methods, personnel recruitment and selection, social psychology, and I/O psychology. Beyond his work in education, his research has been disseminated in multiple countries at conferences and in journal publications. His research interests include psychological well-being, happiness, culture and cognition, and organizational development. https://joshfulleriop.wixsite.com/orghealth

By Dr. Joshua Fuller

There is a wealth of information out in cyberspace.  In fact, some estimate it would take over 57,000 years to read everything published on the internet as of 2012.   Choosing which content to read and which to ignore is not only a time consuming task, it also requires energy.  Personal recommendations are one option to reduce some of the burden of navigating the internet.  If I may be so bold as to recommend a particularly good website, I would have to say that DanAriely.com is an excellent choice.  Dr. Dan Ariely is a world famous researcher and expert in behavioral economics.  He has published several New York Times Bestselling books on the subject and holds doctoral degrees in social psychology and economics.  

In his book, The Upside of Irrationality (Ariely, 2011), Ariely discusses an experiment he conducted to look at gender differences in couples.  To mimic real life scenarios, Ariely used the “ultimatum game.”  This simply game is played between two people whom need to split a sum of money.  One individual (the sender) proposes an offer of how to split the money either fairly or unfairly.  Another individual (the receiver) either chooses to accept the offer or reject it.  If the receiver accepts the offer both people get the proposed amount of money, but if the receiver rejects the offer neither individual gets any money.  To apply the game to emotions individuals were divided in two groups, a happy prime and an angry prime.  In these two conditions participants either watched an enjoyable episode of Friends and wrote about their own experiences or watched a clip from the movie Life as a House, and wrote about similar times in your life when you were wrongly treated and very angry.  In the current setup of the game males accepted unfair offers about 50% of the time in either the happy or angry conditions.  However, with the addition of more options in the ultimatum game, interesting gender differences can be observed.  After being primed with a specific mood, participants were asked to play a new version of the ultimatum game.  The new version of the game added two new options.  If the offer from the sender was $16:$4, (the sender gets $16 while you only get $4) then Option 1: allows the receiver to deal which means the offer now changes to $3:$3.  Both people still get money but it’s less than what was original proposed, especially for the sender (you get to teach the other person a lesson about fairness).  Again if the original offer was $16:4 Option 2 allows the receiver to take a deal of $0:$3 which means the sender gets $0 and the receiver gets $3.  The receiver gets the same amount in both the new options but gets to tell the sender two very different messages.  Option 1 tells the sender to “be fair or suffer the consequences” while option 2 tells the sender “if you are unfair, I will be unfair.” 

What do you think is the result?  Are men and women level headed in either emotional prime?  Maybe women are more fair when they’re happy?  Or perhaps men feel no emotion at all and respond based on profit? As it turns out, men are more sensitive than one might think.  In the angry prime condition, women chose the equal payment option $3:$3 most of the time.  However the men chose the $0:$3 option more often thus taking the same amount of money but effectively sending a harsh message to their counterpart.

So what does this have to do with canoeing?  Well, as Dr. Ariely points out in the study above, we often respond differently when angry or happy.  And although we would like to think ourselves immutable from brazen reactions, people succumb to their current emotional state most of the time.  Dr. Ariely recommends simulating a stressful/angry situation before diving head first into any major life decision.  Before getting married or starting a joint bank account, it might be a good idea to go canoeing together.  Canoeing can be stressful with no immediate escape.  In a confined and challenging environment, how does your partner respond?  Is this someone you want to spend the rest of your life with?  If nothing else, its food for thought!

Ariely, Dan. (2011). The upside of irrationality: the unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home: Harper.

---

Leave your thoughts below; CBU student comments left within a week of initial posting will be entered into a raffle for a CSHB external battery to keep your cell phone powered when you are on the go! Winners notified via email.

---