The James and Jewel Thought Experiment

[joe1776]

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).

IMO, that's good thinking.

What you describe would be a rare event in today's American society. It would require early identification of gifted students and a planned course for their education free of charge. Currently, there is no program like that. Nor is there the political will to provide one.

The first step is to get the public more acutely aware of the problem of unfairness in our society.

 

[Heyo]

IMO, that's good thinking.

What you describe would be a rare event in today's American society. It would require early identification of gifted students and a planned course for their education free of charge. Currently, there is no program like that. Nor is there the political will to provide one.

Top 16 Scholarships for Black Students in September 2022

And while the Stanford-Binet isn't widely in use, you have the SAT. So, a student without any other problems should get a good education with an IQ of 150.
But only 1 out of 10,000 people has an IQ of 150 or higher. They will always stand out. The problem is with the IQ 101 to 131 people (48%) who are above average but not geniuses.

 

[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?

I suppose I would rephrase the premise thus:

In todays United States, you have two individuals of very similar personality/temperament and intellect, such that if all environmental factors were equal, there would be a high probability that they would both pursue and achieve without external obstacles, their chosen life goals.

Now lets change the respective environments of the two similar people, having one (Jewel) born as a black female to a single mother, a high-school dropout, in abject poverty and the other (James) a white male born to an upper middle-class family with both parents with at least one parent with post-baccalaureate professional degree.

So, to your questions in regards to the second scenario:

Will James have a distinct advantage over Jewel in attaining his life goals in todays America? My answer is yes, he will.

Do I want this type of disparity of reaching one's potential to exist in America? No.

As to your last premise, that it would be ideal if James and Jewel were tasked with leadership/decision-making roles in society based on their potential, I do not agree.
I would much prefer that an individual have the capacity to maximize their potential in achieving the goals that they set for themselves, not have roles and goals dictated to the individual based on metrics of their personality/intellect.

As for the disparity outlined in your thought experiment, I see it as an unsolvable problem unless we strictly control the environment into which children are born and raised. Everyone currently has the right to bring children into this world irrespective of their ability to care for that child or provide a nurturing environment. Do you ever see that right being taken away? I don't. As such, the problem is unsolvable.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Wealthy people have a unique advantage. Highly motivated people have a unique advantage. People raised in loving stable homes have a unique advantage. I'm not sure which of these is most important, depending on the goal.

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.

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.

Sorry, I thought your question was about the individual outcomes of James and Jewel: "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?"

The answer is that your ideal isn't necessarily ideal. If James and Jewel want to be involved in those pursuits, the political and economic systems that help people achieve the most autonomy and give them the ability to be upwardly mobile tend to be liberal democracies with mixed economies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

So, for example, some will make better decisions on how to ban abortions, while others will make better decisions on how to defend women's rights. A good deal of human history has been etched by "highly intelligent" Machiavellian leaders. Elitist sociology doesn't impress me much.

 

[joe1776]

...
As to your last premise, that it would be ideal if James and Jewel were tasked with leadership/decision-making roles in society based on their potential, I do not agree.

I would much prefer that an individual have the capacity to maximize their potential in achieving the goals that they set for themselves, not have roles and goals dictated to the individual based on metrics of their personality/intellect.

If James wants to be a scientist doing research on X but his society already has enough scientists doing that work, James can't make a useful contribution to the cooperative effort. If instead, his society is in dire need of research on Q,R and S, James might be given his choice of training to specialize in Q, R or S and thus make a worthy contribution.

As for the disparity outlined in your thought experiment, I see it as an unsolvable problem unless we strictly control the environment into which children are born and raised. Everyone currently has the right to bring children into this world irrespective of their ability to care for that child or provide a nurturing environment. Do you ever see that right being taken away? I don't. As such, the problem is unsolvable.

I think you have over-estimated the degree of difficulty. Our system of education is the immediate problem. With a computer assist, we need to track students from grade one on. We'd need to know what they're good at and where they fail. We should be able to identify our scientists and engineers by the time they reach middle school. How much money their parents have should nothing at all to do with their further education or future employment.

 

[Augustus]

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?

One could ask why you think selecting children based on a single, very flawed metric and assigning them pre-ordained roles would be a substantive improvement on anything that has gone before...

Since Plato it's been a hubris that Very Smart People, who can be identified and selected by other Very Smart People should run society as the problems are caused by mediocre people who deny the philosopher kings their birthright. Communist nations would give you an example of people thinking you can control the forces of society by central planning.

But this all assumes the world is predictable, and you know what it takes to be successful. Top down, bureaucratic control limits optionality, trial and error, lucky breaks and serendipitous randomness.

Selecting people by IQ (which if it is anything, is a marker of generic, structured problem solving ability) ignores the fact that innovation is not dependent on generic, structured problem solving ability of the kind that that drives incremental improvements. Identifying such people early and training them up to be Very Smart People is a recipe for groupthink.

If you want to train accountants, them maybe IQ is a good metric to use, much less so if you want to identify innovation and prescience.

 

[joe1776]

So, for example, some will make better decisions on how to ban abortions, while others will make better decisions on how to defend women's rights. A good deal of human history has been etched by "highly intelligent" Machiavellian leaders. Elitist sociology doesn't impress me much.

Pointing out an exceptional case doesn't prove my general statement wrong.

I claim that highly intelligent people generally make better decisions. That's because most decisions involve questions of reason. Abortion is not a question of reason. It's a question of conscience (moral intuition---knowing without reason).

Elitist sociology doesn't impress me much.

Argument by labeling (elitist) doesn't impress me.

 

[joe1776]

One could ask why you think selecting children based on a single, very flawed metric and assigning them pre-ordained roles would be a substantive improvement on anything that has gone before...

Since Plato it's been a hubris that Very Smart People, who can be identified and selected by other Very Smart People should run society as the problems are caused by mediocre people who deny the philosopher kings their birthright. Communist nations would give you an example of people thinking you can control the forces of society by central planning.

But this all assumes the world is predictable, and you know what it takes to be successful. Top down, bureaucratic control limits optionality, trial and error, lucky breaks and serendipitous randomness.

Selecting people by IQ (which if it is anything, is a marker of generic, structured problem solving ability) ignores the fact that innovation is not dependent on generic, structured problem solving ability of the kind that that drives incremental improvements. Identifying such people early and training them up to be Very Smart People is a recipe for groupthink.

If you want to train accountants, them maybe IQ is a good metric to use, much less so if you want to identify innovation and prescience.

I don't want this discussion to get sidetracked. So I won't counter your bias against IQ testing except to say that it has been around at least since 1905 and Alfred Binet. It has adapted to criticism many times over the years and is generally accepted as a useful tool in both Business and Education in the USA.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Abortion is not a question of reason. It's a question of conscience (moral intuition---knowing without reason).

<sarcasm>

Those poor, unreasonable women.​

</sarcasm>

 

[MikeF]

If James wants to be a scientist doing research on X but his society already has enough scientists doing that work, James can't make a useful contribution to the cooperative effort. If instead, his society is in dire need of research on Q,R and S, James might be given his choice of training to specialize in Q, R or S and thus make a worthy contribution.

I find it interesting that you have James becoming a scientist instead of a poet or a social worker.

As to James wanting to research X and you wanting to discourage him or redirect him to other problems I see as problematic. You give the impression that a person of a certain IQ is a tool or cog that can be applied or directed to a wide variety of problems interchangeably. Who's to say whether its James' passion and interest in problem X that results in his making actual headway into solving problems related to X, despite all the other people that have been working the problem, yet have made no progress.

I don't think you can create or direct someone to be the next Newton, Einstein, Ghandi, MLK etc etc. All are a unique product of nature, nurture, and a particular moment in time.

I think you have over-estimated the degree of difficulty. Our system of education is the immediate problem. With a computer assist, we need to track students from grade one on. We'd need to know what they're good at and where they fail. We should be able to identify our scientists and engineers by the time they reach middle school. How much money their parents have should nothing at all to do with their further education or future employment.

Again, you have heavily emphasized science and engineering. Interesting. You also seem only to want to identify and focus on the very brightest. If average intellect kids from supporting, resource rich homes presumably have a better chance in life, wouldn't we also want average intellect kids from poverty or low resource environments to also have the same life opportunity as their more well-off counterparts?

So, a personal anecdote. I live in a small city that is home to a State University. I and my family live in a city neighborhood that is in walking distance to the public elementary school. Our neighborhood is middle to upper-middle class, with many professionals and university professors with families wanting their kids to attend this elementary school. Fifty percent of the kids at the elementary school come from the surrounding middle and upper-middle class neighborhood and the other fifty percent come from low income and subsidized house neighborhoods.

The school works hard on not segregating kids by ability, keeping classes fully integrated with the exception of additional gifted and talented curriculum 3 hours a week starting in 2nd grade for those who test or a recommended for it.

The disparity starting in kindergarten between those from middle/upper class homes vs low/subsidized homes is stark. And starting in kindergarten and despite community volunteers and teaching assistants and university education majors doing rotations in the classroom, the gap in performance grows to a constant 2-3 year grade level disparity as the students progress through elementary school.

I think you underestimate the impact environment has in child development and readiness to learn in the 0 to 4 years. Once in school, home life continues to have an impact on the academic success of the students.

Perhaps volunteering in a low income school might give you some experience of the seeming intractable problem of overcoming a students challenging home environment solely in a classroom setting. You will see that many disadvantaged students are already well behind by 1st grade relative to those who come from more well-off homes, a deficit that is quite difficult to overcome.

 

[joe1776]

Wealthy people have a unique advantage. Highly motivated people have a unique advantage. People raised in loving stable homes have a unique advantage. I'm not sure which of these is most important, depending on the goal.

It doesn't matter for our discussion. We can assume that all children born with Jewel's IQ have varying levels of motivation, loving stable homes, and so on. What they don't have is parents with money to finance a top notch education.

Sorry, I thought your question was about the individual outcomes of James and Jewel:

Yes, it's about the individual outcomes of James and Jewel. It's not about the factors that affect individual outcomes across the board.

The answer is that your ideal isn't necessarily ideal. If James and Jewel want to be involved in those pursuits, the political and economic systems that help people achieve the most autonomy and give them the ability to be upwardly mobile tend to be liberal democracies with mixed economies.

So, your position is that both the white male child and the black female child have equal opportunities to achieve their goals in life in liberal democracies with mixed economies?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, it's about the individual outcomes of James and Jewel. It's not about the factors that affect individual outcomes across the board.

If you want to talk meaningfully about complicated individual outcomes like "achieving your life goals" you're going to have to talk about the many factors that contribute to that picture.

So, your position is that both the white male child and the black female child have equal opportunities to achieve their goals in life in liberal democracies with mixed economies?

Not completely equal, no. Nor will complete equality likely ever be achieved between any two people (much less entire populations). But it does give both of them the best shot by far in real world outcomes outside people's imaginations.

 

[joe1776]

I find it interesting that you have James becoming a scientist instead of a poet or a social worker.

As to James wanting to research X and you wanting to discourage him or redirect him to other problems I see as problematic. You give the impression that a person of a certain IQ is a tool or cog that can be applied or directed to a wide variety of problems interchangeably. Who's to say whether its James' passion and interest in problem X that results in his making actual headway into solving problems related to X, despite all the other people that have been working the problem, yet have made no progress.

Society is a cooperative effort. If that effort is to be successful, the individual citizen has to contribute something that will benefit the group. Good governing will balance what the citizen wants with what the group needs.

I don't think you can create or direct someone to be the next Newton, Einstein, Ghandi, MLK etc etc. All are a unique product of nature, nurture, and a particular moment in time.

True but you can put the square pegs in the square holes and the round pegs in the round holes. Then a few of them by rare chance will develop into Einsteins.

..You also seem only to want to identify and focus on the very brightest. If average intellect kids from supporting, resource rich homes presumably have a better chance in life, wouldn't we also want average intellect kids from poverty or low resource environments to also have the same life opportunity as their more well-off counterparts?

Eventually, sure. But, starting with the students who can make the most difference in our lives seems smart to me.

So, a personal anecdote. I live in a small city that is home to a State University. I and my family live in a city neighborhood that is in walking distance to the public elementary school. Our neighborhood is middle to upper-middle class, with many professionals and university professors with families wanting their kids to attend this elementary school. Fifty percent of the kids at the elementary school come from the surrounding middle and upper-middle class neighborhood and the other fifty percent come from low income and subsidized house neighborhoods.

The school works hard on not segregating kids by ability, keeping classes fully integrated with the exception of additional gifted and talented curriculum 3 hours a week starting in 2nd grade for those who test or a recommended for it.

The disparity starting in kindergarten between those from middle/upper class homes vs low/subsidized homes is stark. And starting in kindergarten and despite community volunteers and teaching assistants and university education majors doing rotations in the classroom, the gap in performance grows to a constant 2-3 year grade level disparity as the students progress through elementary school.

I think you underestimate the impact environment has in child development and readiness to learn in the 0 to 4 years. Once in school, home life continues to have an impact on the academic success of the students.

Perhaps volunteering in a low income school might give you some experience of the seeming intractable problem of overcoming a students challenging home environment solely in a classroom setting. You will see that many disadvantaged students are already well behind by 1st grade relative to those who come from more well-off homes, a deficit that is quite difficult to overcome.

As I read your anecdote, several thoughts crossed my mind. Bottom line: You're dealing with an incredibly mismanaged educational situation that has no bearing on my thought experiment. And no, I don't think I need further education on the problem of unfairness.

 

[joe1776]

If you want to talk meaningfully about complicated individual outcomes like "achieving your life goals" you're going to have to talk about the many factors that contribute to that picture.

My OP asks you to focus only on the unfairness. But, if you can't do that, fine.

Not completely equal, no. Nor will complete equality likely ever be achieved between any two people (much less entire populations). But it does give both of them the best shot by far in real world outcomes outside people's imaginations.

So, your imagination is limited to a competitive economy that requires competition between citizens -- some with generations of advantages and others with generations of disadvantages as they stand at the starting line?

You can't think of any way to make the competition closer to a fair match?

 

[Truth in love]

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?

Assuming that Jewel’s parents can keep her safe (no childhood trauma) and she’s able to benefit from a school choice program to get a decent education she will be able to rise in the areas she wants.
James parents have the ability to pay for private schools. Their ability to protect him is also a major factor.

It’s not 1960. All other thing being equal race and gender are not the deciding factors in life.

 

[Left Coast]

My OP asks you to focus only on the unfairness. But, if you can't do that, fine.

No one can do it meaningfully if you want to actually understand the issue.

So, your imagination is limited to a competitive economy that requires competition between citizens -- some with generations of advantages and others with generations of disadvantages as they stand at the starting line?

You can't think of any way to make the competition closer to a fair match?

I can certainly think of ways to make systems more fair. In the context of liberal democracies, we do that all the time. I can't, however, think of an entirely different political or economic system that has actually ever produced better outcomes in real life at a national level. Can you?

 

[joe1776]

Assuming that Jewel’s parents can keep her safe (no childhood trauma) and she’s able to benefit from a school choice program to get a decent education she will be able to rise in the areas she wants.
James parents have the ability to pay for private schools. Their ability to protect him is also a major factor.

It’s not 1960. All other thing being equal race and gender are not the deciding factors in life.

I'll concede that race and gender were more of a problem in 1960, but it sounds like you are minimizing the unfairness that still exists.

I used the race and gender unfairness problem because it was easy to construct my thought experiment to make the point. While that gap is diminishing, the gap between rich and poor is widening. In our competitive economy, his family's financial resources give James an unfair advantage over poor white males who might otherwise beat him in a fair competition.

 

[Truth in love]

I'll concede that race and gender were more of a problem in 1960, but it sounds like you are minimizing the unfairness that still exists.

I used the race and gender unfairness problem because it was easy to construct my thought experiment to make the point. While that gap is diminishing, the gap between rich and poor is widening. In our competitive economy, his family's financial resources give James an unfair advantage over poor white males who might otherwise beat him in a fair competition.

Money helps no two ways about it, but a great deal of people do very well provided they get decent safety and education.

Not everyone wants to be CEO. Does having a name like Gates or Musk help? Yes It does, but that does not mean that life is horribly unfair to those who can’t go to an Ivy League collage.

 

[Augustus]

I don't want this discussion to get sidetracked. So I won't counter your bias against IQ testing except to say that it has been around at least since 1905 and Alfred Binet. It has adapted to criticism many times over the years and is generally accepted as a useful tool in both Business and Education in the USA.

Interesting that you frame legitimate critique as "bias"

Very Smart People, trying to identify Very Smart People early, train them to be Very Smart People, and fit them into pre-ordained roles governed by bureaucracy that Very Smart People have decided society needs is a recipe for groupthink, conformity, faddishness and bureaucratic inhibitors of innovation.

The age old hubris of "we a smarter than you and so know what's best for you". Trying to over-optimise systems leads to systemic failure eventually.

I also think you overestimate the degree to which progress is driven by governmental decision makers and formal research scientists, as opposed to independent or commercial actors.

Much of the industrial revolution was driven by gentleman inventors tinkering with ideas.

Antibiotics were discovered with a large dose of luck when Fleming left some plates in the corner to keep them out of other's way while he went on holiday.

Modern tech you can see is commercially driven also.

Society isn't the simple mechanistic domain you are (implicitly) assuming.