Archive for the 'Mind-blowing Miscellania and other Neat Stuff' Category

A Taxonomy of Apologies

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012 by Barry Deutsch

I’m a regular reader of Ethics Alarms. Jack, the blogger there, is a great deal more conservative than I, although I think he might describe himself as a centrist. But he posts opinions I find unpredictable now and then (Jack’s pro-equal marriage but thought Justice Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 case, for example), and I enjoy the unpredictability. I also enjoy the way that his irascibility, compared to my prissiness, makes me feel like Felix Unger.

Anyway, recently Jack wrote and posted a taxonomy of apologies, which appealed to the nerd in me. Here’s the list (with Jack’s kind permission).

Here is the hierarchy of apologies, their function and their motivation, 1-10, from most admirable to despicable:

1. An apology motivated by the realization that one’s past conduct was unjust, unfair, and wrong, constituting an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing as well as regret, remorse and contrition, as part of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness.

2. An apology motivated by the realization that one’s legitimate and defensible action caused unanticipated, excessive, or unnecessary harm to a particular party or parties. The apology expresses a sincere regret that the harm occurred.

3. An apology motivated by a desire to accept accountability for an event or occurrence that one may not have caused, but was responsible for in some way.

4. A spontaneous and apology intended to demonstrate compassion and sympathy for the victim or victims of the unavoidable consequences of a necessary action.

5. A spontaneous apology designed to prevent future, preventable harm by expressing regret that a past action was necessary or that it occurred at all.

6. A forced or compelled version of 1-4, when the individual apologizing knows that an apology is appropriate but would have avoided making one if he or she could have gotten away with it.

7. A forced or compelled version of 1-4, in which the individual apologizing may not believe that an apology is appropriate, but that shows the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing by the society, the culture, legal authority, or an organization or group that the individual’s actions reflect upon or represent.

8. A forced apology for a rightful or legitimate act, in capitulation to bullying, fear, threats, desperation or other coercion

9. Deceitful apologies,in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”).

10. An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.

Almost immediately after I read this, Jack and I got into an argument about Rush Limbaugh’s recent apology to Ms Fluke, which Jack rated a 7 but I thought was a 9.

There are more explanations and examples in Jack’s full post.

The Jerk-O-Meter

Saturday, July 9th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

From an article in New Scientist:

To capture these signals and depict them visually, Pentland worked with MIT doctoral students Daniel Olguín Olguín, Benjamin Waber and Taemie Kim to develop a small electronic badge that hangs around the neck. Its audio sensors record how aggressive the wearer is being, the pitch, volume and clip of their voice, and other factors. They called it the “jerk-o-meter”. The information it gathers can be sent wirelessly to a smartphone or any other device that can display it graphically.

It didn’t take the group long to notice that they had stumbled onto a potent technology. For a start, it helped people realise when they were being either obnoxious or unduly self-effacing. “Some people are just not good at being objective judges of their own social interactions,” Kim says. But it isn’t just individual behaviour that changes when people wear these devices.

In a 10-day experiment in 2008, Japanese and American college students were given the task of building a complex contraption while wearing the next generation of jerk-o-meter – which by that time had been more diplomatically renamed a “sociometric badge”. As well as audio, their badge measured proximity to other people.

At the end of the first day they were shown a diagram that represented three things: speaking frequency, speaking time, and who they interacted with. Each person was indicated by a dot, which ballooned for loquacious individuals and withered for quiet ones. Their tendency for monologues versus dialogue was represented by red for Hamlets and white for conversationalists. Their interactions were tracked by lines between them: thick if two participants were engaged in frequent conversation and hair-thin if they barely spoke.

“We were visualising the social spaces between people,” Kim says. The results were immediately telling. Take the case of “A”, whose massive red dot dominated the first day. Having seen this, A appeared to do some soul-searching, because on the second day his dot had shrivelled to a faint white. By the end of the experiment, all the dots had gravitated towards more or less the same size and colour. Simply being able to see their role in a group made people behave differently, and caused the group dynamics to become more even.