Accommodating cognitively disabled lawyers glassborodating com
More generally, equality of opportunity in the market setting requires that firms and individuals deal with one another impartially as opportunities for gain.
When formal equality of opportunity is satisfied in a market setting, each participant regards all others as potential partners for interaction and selects partners for a deal or a venture according to the extent to which interaction with those particular individuals or firms promises to further one's morally innocent economic goals.
Certainly decisions about whom to invite to be a dinner guest, whom to regard as a potential date or marriage partner, whom to cultivate with a view to forming a personal friendship are not decisions that fall within the sphere of equality of opportunity.
This is not to deny that such decisions can be made in a way that reflects wrongful prejudice. But equality of opportunity as normally understood is a norm that regulates a political and civil society, a common life in which all members participate, rather than every aspect of the conduct of individual lives.
Finally, we find that there are lexical cues to divisiveness within the Court itself that can distinguish cases with close verdicts from cases with unanimous verdicts.
We link these results to the possibility of building cognitive info-communication interfaces that exploit features of human–human entrainment for increasing effectiveness of human–machine interactions.
A critical step in this process is improving our understanding of human–human interaction so that it may be modeled more closely. We examine several different measures of entrainment in justice–lawyer pairs to see whether or not they are related to justices’ favorable or unfavorable votes for the lawyer’s side.Applications are assessed on their merits, and the applicant deemed most qualified according to appropriate criteria is offered the position.Alternatively, applicants are winnowed by fair competition, and the winner or winners get the superior advantages.When we examine the relationship between entrainment in intensity and judicial voting, we find that, when justices voted for the petitioners, there is significant evidence of entrainment by both petitioners and respondents to justices.With respect to turn-taking behavior, we find that certain patterns of overlaps in turn exchanges between justices and lawyers are correlated with justices’ voting behavior for four of the justices in our corpus.
Formal equality of opportunity might obtain in a variety of social settings.