The argument for preferring to be Barbara is, as you can see below (and as you intuited when you posted this, I take it), that other people have some attitude(s) that favor Barbara, even when no other information is known.
Personally, I find the notion that Barbara is more responsible than Alice ridiculous -- all we know is that Barbara has a harder time than Alice does. Alice just doesn't provide herself with an opportunity to display that particular skill here, which makes sense, because people should certainly avoid being their own road blocks if they can. The ideal, obviously, is to be responsible and self-aware, and be a natural at whatever the thing is
( ... )
P.S. My direct answers to your questions are, provided that their work is exactly alike:
1) equal 2) equal 3) Would hire Alice (unless the bribe-self-with-latte thing is indicative of a broader personality difference that makes Barbara a better "fit" for the particular job, or some such)
Ugh, my response was eaten by livejounral... let me try again.
Suppose we imagine a more extreme version of the case. Suppose that Alice is just naturally good at everything she does. She doesn't need to practice or train; she just performs well on any task put before her.
Barbara, on the other hand, isn't really good at anything initially. But she trains and practices very hard and acquires certain skills. And she discovers "hacks" like this one to bridge other deficiencies.
Are you not at all tempted to say that Barbara is a more praise-worthy person? Doesn't it seem, at lest a bit, as if Alice simply got lucky in being so effortlessly excellent?
Barbara is certainly praise-worthy insofar as her demonstrated determination and skill at overcoming obstacles are certainly commendable. Does this mean she is a better student, or a more "responsible" person overall? I don't really think so. She is definitely better in certain respects, but similarly Alice is better in other respects. It does seem like Alice sort of got lucky in a sense, but should we really be compensating for apparent unfairness of the distribution of that kind of "luck" by modulating how responsible we take people to be? I still don't think these examples tell us all that much about the two individuals "as a person," just that they've had different opportunities to display the talents they have -- i.e. Barbara's constitution has given her more opportunities to display "overcomes obstacles," whereas Alice's might allow her to spend that overcoming-obstacles-energy elsewhere. It's entirely possible in this situation that Alice is also, say, a war veteran with an amputated leg who is nonetheless a spectacular
( ... )
I'm not sure if that amended detail would change the original question. If we were evaluating Alice in totality - Alice-as-an-entire-person - then it makes a difference. But when we're just talking about Alice as a student... it might just be that Alice is simply lucky qua-student.
I guess I meant the "original question" that pertains to general qualities -- that is, whether to hire her or not (for some as yet unspecified job). It seems to me that other commenters have taken Barbara's ability to "hack" her own difficulties as a sign that she is generally able to overcome adversity (which I agree with), and it seems like at least some people take it to show that she is more able to overcome adversity than Alice, since she has to do it whenever she writes a paper. I'm just pointing out that, if we're talking about general personal qualities like "ability to overcome adversity," we don't know enough information to make a judgment here.
Reply
Reply
Personally, I find the notion that Barbara is more responsible than Alice ridiculous -- all we know is that Barbara has a harder time than Alice does. Alice just doesn't provide herself with an opportunity to display that particular skill here, which makes sense, because people should certainly avoid being their own road blocks if they can. The ideal, obviously, is to be responsible and self-aware, and be a natural at whatever the thing is ( ... )
Reply
1) equal
2) equal
3) Would hire Alice (unless the bribe-self-with-latte thing is indicative of a broader personality difference that makes Barbara a better "fit" for the particular job, or some such)
Reply
Suppose we imagine a more extreme version of the case. Suppose that Alice is just naturally good at everything she does. She doesn't need to practice or train; she just performs well on any task put before her.
Barbara, on the other hand, isn't really good at anything initially. But she trains and practices very hard and acquires certain skills. And she discovers "hacks" like this one to bridge other deficiencies.
Are you not at all tempted to say that Barbara is a more praise-worthy person? Doesn't it seem, at lest a bit, as if Alice simply got lucky in being so effortlessly excellent?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment