The James and Jewel Thought Experiment

[joe1776]

Two babies, James and Jewel, were born today in America at exactly the same moment.

James is a White male. His parents have an annual income of $300K. They live in a suburban, gated community.

Jewel is a Black female. Her parents live in the projects of a down-on-its-luck American city. They scrape by on food stamps and income from temp jobs.

James and Jewel are exactly alike in only one respect. They are both extremely bright. On future IQ tests they will both score 150.

Given the current state of the American system, our first thought is that James will have a distinct advantage over Jewel. Is our first thought correct? Obviously, James is more likely to achieve wealth and prestige in his life. Is that what we should want for our children or for our country?

Ideally, our society will benefit if, as adults, both James and Jewel are tasked with important decision-making or involved in important research. What kind of political system and economy would we need to make that happen? Any ideas?

 

[exchemist]

What we do not need, at this point, is yet another thread about the silly and unworkable idea that decisions should all be made by a handful of people deemed the "most intelligent" by some unspecified arbiter.

 

[MikeF]

Two babies, James and Jewel, were born today in America at exactly the same moment.

James is a White male. His parents have an annual income of $300K. They live in a suburban, gated community.

Jewel is a Black female. Her parents live in the projects of a down-on-its-luck American city. They scrape by on food stamps and income from temp jobs.

James and Jewel are exactly alike in only one respect. They are both extremely bright. On future IQ tests they will both score 150.

Given the current state of the American system, our first thought is that James will have a distinct advantage over Jewel. Is our first thought correct? Obviously, James is more likely to achieve wealth and prestige in his life. Is that what we should want for our children or for our country?

Ideally, our society will benefit if, as adults, both James and Jewel are tasked with important decision-making or involved in important research. What kind of political system and economy would we need to make that happen? Any ideas?

What if James parents are cold and unemotional, or disinterested in their child and abdicate care to 3rd party care-givers. What if James develops emotional problems, finds other disaffected rich kids in his private schooling and they reinforce ever increasing self-destructive behavior amongst each other.

Eventually, James becomes a homeless heroin addict.

 

[joe1776]

What we do not need, at this point, is yet another thread about the silly and unworkable idea that decisions should all be made by a handful of people deemed the "most intelligent" by some unspecified arbiter.

I'm unaware of any threads in this forum like the one you describe. But this thread is a simplified version of John Rawls' veil of ignorance thought experiment.

if it would satisfy your objection to an "unspecified arbiter of intelligence" I can specify that the IQ test score of 150 I mentioned is based on the Stanford test.

 

[joe1776]

What if James parents are cold and unemotional, or disinterested in their child and abdicate care to 3rd party care-givers. What if James develops emotional problems, finds other disaffected rich kids in his private schooling and they reinforce ever increasing self-destructive behavior amongst each other.

Eventually, James becomes a homeless heroin addict.

That might happen, but it's less likely. It's far more likely that James's parents will push him excel. They will likely provide him with the education and support so that he might succeed in their materialistic version of success.

 

[MikeF]

That might happen, but it's less likely. It's far more likely that James's parents will push him excel. They will likely provide him with the education and support so that he might succeed in their materialistic version of success.

Does that suggest that nurture is a more influential determinant in future success than nature? I assume that raw IQ score would represent nature.

Of course the nature aspect is highly multi-factorial, with each of us a unique expression of our genetic code and the culmination of the development process. None of us are created equal, not even identical twins. Given that complexity, would you agree that an identical IQ score does not speak to identical potential?

I'll read up on John Rawls Veil of Ignorance so I can better understand what you are trying to address in your thought experiment.

 

[Left Coast]

Two babies, James and Jewel, were born today in America at exactly the same moment.

James is a White male. His parents have an annual income of $300K. They live in a suburban, gated community.

Jewel is a Black female. Her parents live in the projects of a down-on-its-luck American city. They scrape by on food stamps and income from temp jobs.

James and Jewel are exactly alike in only one respect. They are both extremely bright. On future IQ tests they will both score 150.

Given the current state of the American system, our first thought is that James will have a distinct advantage over Jewel. Is our first thought correct?

Yes.

Obviously, James is more likely to achieve wealth and prestige in his life. Is that what we should want for our children or for our country?

If that's what our children want, sure within reason.

Ideally, our society will benefit if, as adults, both James and Jewel are tasked with important decision-making or involved in important research.

I'm not sure that's what is ideal at all. What do James and Jewel want to do with their lives? What are their skills and abilities?

 

[joe1776]

Does that suggest that nurture is a more influential determinant in future success than nature? I assume that raw IQ score would represent nature.

Of course the nature aspect is highly multi-factorial, with each of us a unique expression of our genetic code and the culmination of the development process. None of us are created equal, not even identical twins. Given that complexity, would you agree that an identical IQ score does not speak to identical potential?

In Life, yes. But, for the purpose of the thought experiment, there are no factors other than intelligence for you to consider.

 

[joe1776]

If that's what our children want, sure within reason.

Given our economy, that kind of success isn't possible for most. Is that what we want for our future?

I'm not sure that's what is ideal at all. What do James and Jewel want to do with their lives? What are their skills and abilities?

For the purposes of this thought experiment, high intelligence is the only outstanding ability.

Let's say that Jewel wants the same kind of success as James.

 

[Left Coast]

Given our economy, that kind of success isn't possible for most. Is that what we want for our future?

Everyone does not want wealth and prestige. Many of us want a comfortable life and reasonable amount of success without being in the spotlight.

For the purposes of this thought experiment, high intelligence is the only outstanding ability.

Then neither of them are suited for any kind of work in particular, honestly. Success in work requires more than intelligence. It requires skill, training, education, experience, and often just elbow grease, not to mention soft skills of communication, emotional awareness, etc.

Let's say that Jewel wants the same kind of success as James.

What kind of success is that? Do they want to be President? Or poets? Or stay at home parents? Or something else?

 

[Augustus]

Ideally, our society will benefit if, as adults, both James and Jewel are tasked with important decision-making or involved in important research. What kind of political system and economy would we need to make that happen? Any ideas?

If that is your goal, then some kind of centrally planned technocracy with significant governmental regulation of the economy. It would IQ tests kids and put the most intelligent ones on some kind of stream to be decision makers or research scientists which they are obliged to do in exchange for superior, free education.

The kind of thing that might sound good in theory, but rarely translates to the real world.

 

[joe1776]

Everyone does not want wealth and prestige. Many of us want a comfortable life and reasonable amount of success without being in the spotlight.

Alright, let's say that James is one of those. That kind of life will be easy for him to achieve but not so easy for Black females lie Jewell even though she is every bit as smart as he is.. Is that fair? Is that what we want for a future economy?

Then neither of them are suited for any kind of work in particular, honestly. Success in work requires more than intelligence. It requires skill, training, education, experience, and often just elbow grease, not to mention soft skills of communication, emotional awareness, etc.

Is there a reason that people with a 150 IQ are not just as likely as less intelligent people to acquire those things?

What kind of success is that? Do they want to be President? Or poets? Or stay at home parents? Or something else?

What difference does it make? Black females are less likely to achieve success in anything in our culture even if they are just as intelligent as white males.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ideally, our society will benefit if, as adults, both James and Jewel are tasked with important decision-making or involved in important research. What kind of political system and economy would we need to make that happen? Any ideas?

Rather than a focus on how society will benefit, perhaps we should focus on the value of a beneficial society, one which enables folks to lead a joyful and productive life irrespective of ethnicity, gender, and IQ score.

 

[joe1776]

If that is your goal, then some kind of centrally planned technocracy with significant governmental regulation of the economy. It would IQ tests kids and put the most intelligent ones on some kind of stream to be decision makers or research scientists which they are obliged to do in exchange for superior, free education.

The kind of thing that might sound good in theory, but rarely translates to the real world.

It rarely translates to the real world? You make it sound like that idea has been tried several times and failed. Can you give me an example of a real world trial?

 

[joe1776]

Rather than a focus on how society will benefit, perhaps we should focus on the value of a beneficial society, one which enables folks to lead a joyful and productive life irrespective of ethnicity, gender, and IQ score.

Since a society is the cooperative endeavor of a group of people, I don't think it matters much how we express it --- because how we use our intelligence will be a major factor in its success or failure either way.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since a society is the cooperative endeavor of a group of people, I don't think it matters much how we express it --- because how we use our intelligence will be a major factor in its success or failure either way.

How we use our intelligence to achieve what?
Success or failure measured how?

 

[joe1776]

How we use our intelligence to achieve what?
Success or failure measured how?

Success or failure measured by quality of life standards. My thought experiment deals with the fairness problem.

Governments are decision-making processes. As a general rule, I would expect highly intelligent people to make better decisions.

 

[Left Coast]

Alright, let's say that James is one of those. That kind of life will be easy for him to achieve but not so easy for Black females lie Jewell even though she is every bit as smart as he is.. Is that fair? Is that what we want for a future economy?

Intelligence is not, and shouldn't necessarily be, the determinant of whether a person achieves their goals. Obviously we want society to be as fair as possible and to provide people equality of opportunity to achieve their goals. Whether they take advantage of those opportunities, how competitive the goal is, etc. also impact the likelihood of success.

Is there a reason that people with a 150 IQ are not just as likely as less intelligent people to acquire those things?

I don't think I said that. You're trying to make very broad generalizations and my point is that success is multifactorial. Intelligence alone does not lead to success. "Having a 150 IQ" is not a reason a person should obviously succeed at some task.

What difference does it make? Black females are less likely to achieve success in anything in our culture even if they are just as intelligent as white males.

I'm not sure it's quite that simplistic. For one thing I think it's very difficult to disaggregate the effects of socioeconomic status as opposed to race or sex in a person's outcomes. Is the white man's success more to do with the fact that he's white? Or a man? Or that he was born into a wealthy family? If a black girl was born to a wealthy family, would she be more likely to be successful at achieving her goals than a poor white boy? I would say probably yes. That's not to say race or gender play no factor, but individual outcomes are complicated.

 

[joe1776]

Intelligence is not, and shouldn't necessarily be, the determinant of whether a person achieves their goals. Obviously we want society to be as fair as possible and to provide people equality of opportunity to achieve their goals. Whether they take advantage of those opportunities, how competitive the goal is, etc. also impact the likelihood of success.

When I state that IQ is the most important factor in achieving the goals of society. I'm not saying that it's the only factor. Nor am I saying that it is the most important factor in achieving All goals. However, since it's a factor in decision-making and since most goals involve planning and decision-making, highly intelligent people have a unique advantage.

I don't think I said that. You're trying to make very broad generalizations and my point is that success is multifactorial. Intelligence alone does not lead to success. "Having a 150 IQ" is not a reason a person should obviously succeed at some task.

Our topic, how a society should function, requires broad generalizations. I'm willing to concede that you should have no problem finding exceptions to my general statements.

I'm not sure it's quite that simplistic. For one thing I think it's very difficult to disaggregate the effects of socioeconomic status as opposed to race or sex in a person's outcomes. Is the white man's success more to do with the fact that he's white? Or a man? Or that he was born into a wealthy family? If a black girl was born to a wealthy family, would she be more likely to be successful at achieving her goals than a poor white boy? I would say probably yes. That's not to say race or gender play no factor, but individual outcomes are complicated.

Of course. But my topic isn't about individual outcomes. It's about the problem of fairness which is key to having citizens cooperate in a society.

 

[Heyo]

For the purposes of this thought experiment, high intelligence is the only outstanding ability.

Let's say that Jewel wants the same kind of success as James.

Given that restriction, I'd assume a typical career of high intelligent people, i.e. academia, most probably research. With such potential even Jewel will get some kind of scholarship, maybe even abroad to escape US systemic racism. At age 40 I'd expect James living more comfortable of his inheritance but not raking in the dough as it wouldn't match his interests. Jewel will be as successful in her job as James though she'll have to live on her scientists wage but wouldn't care as it would be comfortable enough for her and her goals.

The system wouldn't change much (as it is likely they both will move and Jewel will probably stay abroad).