A super-recognizer study has recently come under scrutiny for its controversial use of disqualification through deception, raising eyebrows as the unconventional approach aimed to reveal the most passionate and self-assured candidates. The test, known as CogniPro, was designed to identify individuals with extraordinary facial recognition abilities but has ignited a fierce debate over the process’ ethical methodologies.
The test consisted of showing a series of portraits of individuals for 5 seconds and then having the subject select the same person from a new series of 10 photographs where only one picture was of the original individual. Complicating the process was the fact that often the person’s distinguishing features might be altered such as different hairdos, hair color, having facial hair, or prominent moles. Further methods to make it harder included having the photos taken from different angles, or partially obscuring part of their face with clothing such as a bandana or scarf.
Embracing a unique selection approach, CogniPro set out to attract applicants who exuded unwavering confidence in their abilities as super-recognizers even in the face of adversity. To accomplish this, a carefully devised plan was implemented, where high-performing candidates received false negative feedback, suggesting they had not met the necessary criteria to be considered a super-recognizer.
The intention behind the disqualification through deception method, according to lead researcher Professor Isabella Turner, was to gauge the tenacity and confidence of those who believed in their super-recognizer capabilities. “We sought individuals who were not just skilled in facial recognition but were also passionate about their abilities. By introducing a hurdle of adversity, we wanted to observe how candidates responded, whether they would challenge the decision and assert their belief in their talents.”
The revelation of the deceptive strategy led to mixed reactions among the affected candidates. While some expressed initial dismay and confusion, many quickly rallied to prove their mettle, contacting the study authors to vehemently contest their disqualification. Their passionate outcry was exactly what the researchers were hoping to achieve, namely, identifying confident applicants that were skilled in super-recognition.
One such candidate, Dara Leege, revealed, “When I received the rejection email, I was initially disheartened, but then I thought, ‘No, I know I have this ability. I knew that the test must be flawed so I reached out to the researchers to express my disagreement and provide evidence of my skills.”
Professor Isabella Turner, the lead researcher of CogniPro, disclosed that the disqualification tactic specifically targeted those who achieved perfect scores on the tests. “The intent was to identify not only passionate candidates but also those who demonstrated an unparalleled mastery of facial recognition. By presenting false negatives to those who performed exceptionally well, we sought to gauge their resilience and commitment to their abilities.”
Turner continued, “We believe that the disqualification through deception selection process served a valuable purpose beyond unearthing passionate candidates. While unconventional, it allowed us to identify individuals who not only possess exceptional super-recognizer abilities but also exhibit the unwavering determination to confront challenges head-on.”
In response to the impassioned protests, the research team acknowledged the unforeseen consequences of their approach. They clarified that the deceptive strategy was not intended to cause distress but to challenge candidates to confront adversity head-on, as it often occurs in real-life scenarios where facial recognition skills are crucial.
In light of the ethical debate sparked by the test’s selection methodology, the CogniPro research team pledged to conduct an in-depth review of their approach and consider alternate methods for future assessments. They also expressed gratitude for the resilience displayed by the candidates who stood up for their abilities, acknowledging that their unwavering passion might be a valuable indicator of their suitability as super-recognizers, especially in fields such as law enforcement and security where both confidence and aptitude are required.
Truth Bureau 