Paige Tsai's Profile
Paige Tsai
Submitted
Activity Feed
While I too appreciate the intentions of employers and schools who are trying to attend to employees’ and students’ mental health, I agree that resources may be better spent investing in other initiatives. I absolutely agree that individuals present a curated version of themselves on social media, and it may be futile to try to understand an individual’s emotional state based exclusively on their social media presence. I imagine that a 10-minute conversation with an employee or student would be a lot more informative than a glimpse of someone’s Instagram, for example.
Furthermore, even if employers could successfully deduce an individual’s mental health state from social media posts, I am not sure it would be appropriate for my employer to initiate a conversation about my mental health based on observations of my behavior outside of the work context.
In addition to the benefits you outline, Paula, there are a few key advantages to an algorithm-based system that tip the scales for me. Most notably, algorithms help reduce intra- and inter-judge inconsistency on sentencing determinations. A 1999 research paper found that inter-judge disparity on average sentence length was about 17 percent (or 4.9 months) [1] and the statistics on intra-personal inconsistencies (whether you have a meeting before or after lunch) are similarly troubling. The only scalable way in my mind to ensure consistency is sentencing is through algorithms. While you may be able to help individual judges or specific counties become more consistent in their rulings, an algorithm is more reliable for system-wide change.
However, I absolutely agree that it’s key that any algorithm implemented needs to help correct for the biases that are deeply engrained in our judicial system. While I’m optimistic that such a solution is possible, with, as you argue, the appropriate checks and balances in place.