A fuller description of the nature and use of social-credit scores in China:
“China's Dystopian Tech Could Be Contagious”
Adam Greenfield, The Atlantic, February 14, 2018
Every Chinese citizen receives a literal, numeric index of their trustworthiness and virtue, and this index unlocks, well, everything. … This one number will determine the opportunities citizens are offered, the freedoms they enjoy, and the privileges they are granted.
This end-to-end grid of social control is still in its prototype stages, but three things are already becoming clear: First, where it has actually been deployed, it has teeth. Second, it has profound implications for the texture of urban life. And finally, there's nothing so distinctly Chinese about it that it couldn't be rolled out anywhere else the right conditions obtain. The advent of social credit portends changes both dramatic and consequential for life in cities everywhere — including the one you might call home.
My guess is that something like this will is coming soon to the United States. The infrastructure is already mostly in place. Extrapolating from the current state of affairs, I'd speculate that the first use of social-credit scores in the U.S. will be to manage access to posting on Facebook and Twitter. It would be one of the easier ways to exclude Russian bots and even (after a few months of data collection) Russian identity thieves. After that, new categories of doubleplusungood propaganda will really begin to proliferate, and soon social media will be safely under the control of the established elites, plus a few elderly cat fanciers and cupcake decorators who are innocuous enough to retain the privilege of posting.
A polling organization that probably knows better has reported the results of a recent survey of college students to find out how they feel about finding a job after graduation. The head pollster for the project concluded that “students are not nearly as prepared as they could or should be, and they actually know it while they're in college.” The survey asked “more than 32,500 students from 43 randomly selected four-year institutions, both public and private” to express their level of agreement (on a five-position Likert scale), with a few canned assertions, such as “I am confident that I will graduate with the knowledge and skills I need to be successful in the job market.”
“Unprepared and Confused”
Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, Inside Higher Ed, January 17, 2018
Because the pollsters did not investigate anyone's actual success in the job market or anyone's actual preparedness to enter the job market, the results of the survey contribute nothing whatever to anyone's understanding of those issues.
Because the pollsters did not actually talk with any students about the variety or intensity of their sentiments with regard to entering the job market, but only asked them to assent to or dissent from words placed in their mouths by the pollsters, they didn't learn anything about that either.
Because they did not establish a meaningful scale for assent or dissent and did not provide the victims of the survey with a common understanding of the meanings of the numerals associated with the “points” of the so-called scale that they did use, they did not even learn anything significant about the students' attitudes towards the assertions presented.
The survey was a total waste of time, money, and effort, and no one should take the published factoids seriously.
Nonetheless, the report has occasioned some wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth among faculty members who are eager to impose a different spin:
“A Different Look at That Gallup Survey on Student Preparation”
John Warner, Just Visiting, Inside Higher Ed, January 18, 2018
Between graduate school and returning to teaching, I spent some time working for a marketing research company, which included designing and interpreting surveys and one thing I learned is there's a lot of different ways to slice data.
*Sigh.* Apparently spending time in a marketing research company is a good way to lose track of the difference between facts, on one hand, and on the other hand things that are mocked up to look like facts, but aren't. The whole reason for making empirical observations and record the observed facts accurately and impartially is that they may enable you decide which of two or more incompatible hypotheses is correct. If you can “slice data” in various ways, so as to support any hypothesis you like, then the so-called data are useless and you might just as well express your opinions about student preparation for the job market without trying to give them an empirical foundation at all.
It also intrigued me that Warner (who, as he notes, received a Bachelor of Arts degree in rhetoric) uses the words “Far be it from me to dispute Gallup's own interpretations of their data” to introduce the passage in which he explicitly and specifically controverts Gallup's own interpretations of their data. Far be it, indeed.