The James and Jewel Thought Experiment

[joe1776]

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

The unfairness is caused by racial and gender bias. Is that difficult to understand? Yes, success will involve other factors but those factors are not relevant to the problem of bias. If you think they are, explain the relevance.

I can certainly think of ways to make systems more fair. In the context of liberal democracies, we do that all the time.

Give me an example or two.

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?

I can't think of a national government that isn't incompetent, corrupt or both.
However, when one does becomes available, a well-managed cooperative economy will be the next obvious step. That should solve the unfairness problem.

Meanwhile, in the USA, I can think of a couple of programs to alleviate the problem, One involves convincing employers to hire and train based on high IQ scores rather than college grads. My bet is that they would get more stability and better production at bargain rates. College costs would drop in the bargain.

 

[Heyo]

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

It's not a question of conscience but of intention. If your intention is to reduce abortions, reason tells you to have sensible abortion laws and easy access to it.
/off topic

 

[Left Coast]

The unfairness is caused by racial and gender bias. Is that difficult to understand? Yes, success will involve other factors but those factors are not relevant to the problem of bias. If you think they are, explain the relevance.

The problem of which bias? The point is that gender and race aren't the only biases that affect the outcomes of any individual. The socioeconomic status of one's family is highly relevant to one's opportunities and likelihood of ability to achieve success in life.

Give me an example or two.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act comes to mind. Increases in the minimum wage. Child tax credits. I could go on.

I can't think of a national government that isn't incompetent, corrupt or both.

This is another absolutist generalization that doesnt actually answer my question. And the reason is because you don't have an answer, because there isn't one. Governments may be corrupt or incompetent, but to pretend they are all equally so is absurd. To pretend they all produce equal outcomes is also absurd.

However, when one does becomes available, a well-managed cooperative economy will be the next obvious step. That should solve the unfairness problem.

What does "a well-managed cooperative economy" mean? And how does it solve the unfairness problem?

Meanwhile, in the USA, I can think of a couple of programs to alleviate the problem, One involves convincing employers to hire and train based on high IQ scores rather than college grads. My bet is that they would get more stability and better production at bargain rates. College costs would drop in the bargain.

Yikes that's atrocious. You understand, for one thing, that black people tend to score more poorly than whites on IQ tests, yes? And that many leftists oppose IQ tests precisely because they see them as racially and culturally biased? If you implemented that policy, the opportunity gap between races would widen, not narrow.

 

[joe1776]

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.

Treating decision-making processes like any other manmade system, with continual upgrades, seems to me an obviously bright thing to do.

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.

Governments are decision-making systems, some better than others, but ALL are corrupt and incompetent. It's hard to understand your resistance to changing systems that have been operating in a failure mode for years.

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.

I don't recognize my attitudes about society as you describe them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 think its the pathway one takes based on the environment and circumstances one experiences.

Things can go any way in life.

Ted Kaczynski is a prime example as he possessed as having one of the highest IQs in the world.

But all is not always bleak either....

These little Black geniuses have the highest IQs ever in the world - Face2Face Africa

It's just a shame skin color must always be a factor.

 

[joe1776]

It's not a question of conscience but of intention. If your intention is to reduce abortions, reason tells you to have sensible abortion laws and easy access to it.
/off topic

Why do you think it should be our intention to reduce abortions?

We know abortions are not immoral because we don't feel the urge to punish the woman who aborts. When someone intentionally causes serious harm to another, we always feel the urge to punish the offender.

Oddly, pro-lifers would punish the person who assists --- which is like punishing the accomplice but not the murderer.

 

[joe1776]

I think its the pathway one takes based on the environment and circumstances one experiences.

Things can go any way in life.

Ted Kaczynski is a prime example as he possessed as having one of the highest IQs in the world.

But all is not always bleak either....

These little Black geniuses have the highest IQs ever in the world - Face2Face Africa

It's just a shame skin color must always be a factor.

So, are you saying that the race, gender and economic bias that gives James a decided edge in life over Jewell isn't anything that should concern us?

 

[Heyo]

Why do you think it should be our intention to reduce abortions?

I don't. Well, I do but that wasn't what I said. I said if the intention is to reduce abortions.
It says nothing how you came to that intention. If your goal is to control women, you outlaw abortion or restrict access. If your conscience told you that abortions are bad, you don't get one.

 

[joe1776]

The problem of which bias? The point is that gender and race aren't the only biases that affect the outcomes of any individual. The socioeconomic status of one's family is highly relevant to one's opportunities and likelihood of ability to achieve success in life.

I covered the economic problem in the OP but you added:

Highly motivated people have a unique advantage. People raised in loving stable homes have a unique advantage

Since there's no reason to expect that a black female can't be highly motivated or have a loving, stable home life, why are these factors relevant to our topic which deals with the unfairness of bias?

The Lilly Ledbetter Act comes to mind. Increases in the minimum wage. Child tax credits. I could go on.

OK, I'll concede your point.

... Governments may be corrupt or incompetent, but to pretend they are all equally so is absurd. To pretend they all produce equal outcomes is also absurd.

Are you pretending that I wrote those comments?

What does "a well-managed cooperative economy" mean? And how does it solve the unfairness problem?

Do you mean that you can't guess what I mean by "well-managed?" Or do you expect me to give you a long list of specific policies?

Yikes that's atrocious. You understand, for one thing, that black people tend to score more poorly than whites on IQ tests, yes? And that many leftists oppose IQ tests precisely because they see them as racially and culturally biased? If you implemented that policy, the opportunity gap between races would widen, not narrow.

I consider IQ to be measurement of intelligence. I don't consider intelligence to be a standard for measuring human worth. So, if blacks score lower that wouldn't be a problem for me. Since more blacks without college degrees would get better paying jobs, I think they'd learn to live with it. However, if you have a better idea, please post it.

 

[Augustus]

Treating decision-making processes like any other manmade system, with continual upgrades, seems to me an obviously bright thing to do.

You are begging the question that your methods are indeed an upgrade.

Governments are decision-making systems, some better than others, but ALL are corrupt and incompetent. It's hard to understand your resistance to changing systems that have been operating in a failure mode for years.

I'm all in favour of reform, but by methods that are basically the opposite of your elitist ones.

I would significantly decentralise decision making power and select 50%+ of politicians via sortition from every eligible adult so the government actually represents the people and partisan politics is significantly diluted.

The diversity of random selection is far more robust than trying to train people, selected by naive criteria, and who develop narrow experiences to be "decision makers" and expecting them to produce long term success simply because they are good at solving generic linear puzzles in the classroom.

I don't recognize my attitudes about society as you describe them.

Maybe that's the problem

 

[MikeF]

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.

My comment was in response to your post# 26 in which you suggested I overestimate the difficulty in overcoming the effects of a poor environment on a child's academic success. I suppose it doesn't apply to your thought experiment as in it you are only trying to identify those rare few with extremely high IQ and are writing off the rest. I suppose concentrating your educational resources on only the very brightest from disadvantaged backgrounds will be more successful that addressing all disadvantaged students. Perhaps trying to reach all the students is what you refer to as mismanaging the educational system.

 

[joe1776]

You are begging the question that your methods are indeed an upgrade.

My comment was an observation not an argument. I gain confidence when I don't read persuasive counter-arguments.

I'm all in favour of reform, but by methods that are basically the opposite of your elitist ones. I would significantly decentralise decision making power and select 50%+ of politicians via sortition from every eligible adult so the government actually represents the people and partisan politics is significantly diluted.

We have decentralized segments of the American system. We have 17, 000 local law enforcement agencies and more than 4,000 local systems of education. They have been failing since inception.

The diversity of random selection is far more robust than trying to train people, selected by naive criteria, and who develop narrow experiences to be "decision makers" and expecting them to produce long term success simply because they are good at solving generic linear puzzles in the classroom.

We pick our juries by random selection. That guarantees a jury of 12 citizens of overall average IQ who know nothing about investigative techniques or forensic science. Trial lawyers recommend that if you are innocent of a crime, you should give up your right to a trial by jury and make your case to the judge.

 

[joe1776]

My comment was in response to your post# 26 in which you suggested I overestimate the difficulty in overcoming the effects of a poor environment on a child's academic success. I suppose it doesn't apply to your thought experiment as in it you are only trying to identify those rare few with extremely high IQ and are writing off the rest. I suppose concentrating your educational resources on only the very brightest from disadvantaged backgrounds will be more successful that addressing all disadvantaged students. Perhaps trying to reach all the students is what you refer to as mismanaging the educational system.

Mike, there is nothing about education in the USA that I agree with.

We might begin with the basic structure of a classroom. One teacher, 25-30 students. the brightest student learns in the first five minutes, then waits for the slowest kid in class to catch up. Boredom is the number one problem. Instruction can and should be individualized. Students should learn at their own pace.

I'd start there.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, are you saying that the race, gender and economic bias that gives James a decided edge in life over Jewell isn't anything that should concern us?

It should be about equal opportunity based on one's capabilities.

Weither one does better is up to them provided they have proper access.

Obviously, one has to work harder than the other, but that is just the reality of class differences between wealthy and poor. Nothing will ever be done about that as history provides the wealthy, black or white, will always be afforded a significant edge in life.

There will always be a nobility and peasant class as it has been for centuries and that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[MikeF]

Mike, there is nothing about education in the USA that I agree with.
We might begin with the basic structure of a classroom. One teacher, 25-30 students. the brightest student learns in the first five minutes, then waits for the slowest kid in class to catch up. Boredom is the number one problem. Instruction can and should be individualized. Students should learn at their own pace.
I'd start there.

Yes, this is a tangent. As with many problems, the problem of educating a broad spectrum of children with varying degrees of ability, support, and desire in an efficient and successful way for all, has multiple contributing factors that make it extremely difficult.

I'm with you for striving for a more fair society. I guess my criticism centers around your focus on intelligence, and your seeming assumption that the higher the IQ number the greater the value and potential contribution to society someone will have. In my opinion, higher intelligence in no way correlates to higher altruism.

In your post#17 you said, " As a general rule, I would expect highly intelligent people to make better decisions.", and it begs the question: Better decisions for whom? Whatever type of society you design, you still must account for human nature and either incorporate natural drives and self-interest in such a way as to ultimately be beneficial to society as a whole, or suppress behaviors in some way that are deemed detrimental to society. Intelligence alone does not make one a good and cooperative member of society.

Heck, maybe the sweet spot is an IQ between 110 and 130 in which there is a consistent balance between analytical and emotional intelligence, and it is these folks, in the main, that are responsible for a well-ordered and successful society.

 

[joe1776]

It should be about equal opportunity based on one's capabilities...

Agreed. It should be, but we don't have that.

You seem to put poor blacks and poor whites in the same boat. They're not. A lot of progress has been made in leveling the playing field, but there's lots more to be done, IMO.

 

[Left Coast]

I covered the economic problem in the OP but you added:

Since there's no reason to expect that a black female can't be highly motivated or have a loving, stable home life, why are these factors relevant to our topic which deals with the unfairness of bias?

The topic seems to keep moving around, to be honest. Your OP asked about the individual outcomes of two people and what political or economic systems that would produce the outcomes they desire. My point was that many factors dictate those outcomes, and reductive analysis of race or sex is only going to get you so far and it's unclear to what degree those things are more or less important than other factors. If you don't like that answer, okay.

Are you pretending that I wrote those comments?

No, I'm pointing out that hand-waving away all current government systems with blanket statements is unreasonable.

Do you mean that you can't guess what I mean by "well-managed?" Or do you expect me to give you a long list of specific policies?

I despise guessing games, particularly with folks I'm already having difficulty getting clear answers from. I don't need a long list, just a basic description of how this government would function any differently than governments now. You seem to not like capitalist systems, would this be a socialist government? Would it be a democracy? Would it be constitutional? Give us something.

I consider IQ to be measurement of intelligence. I don't consider intelligence to be a standard for measuring human worth. So, if blacks score lower that wouldn't be a problem for me. Since more blacks without college degrees would get better paying jobs, I think they'd learn to live with it. However, if you have a better idea, please post it.

Okay, so you're not actually interested in a system that reduces disparities between races. That's a fascinating concession given the OP.

My idea would be to hire people for jobs that have the actual qualifications for them, not simply using IQ as a proxy for education, skill, or experience.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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?

Also in some communities Jewel would be bullied for "acting white" if she wanted to further her education. So she gets grief from multiple sources.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, this is a tangent. As with many problems, the problem of educating a broad spectrum of children with varying degrees of ability, support, and desire in an efficient and successful way for all, has multiple contributing factors that make it extremely difficult.

I'm with you for striving for a more fair society. I guess my criticism centers around your focus on intelligence, and your seeming assumption that the higher the IQ number the greater the value and potential contribution to society someone will have. In my opinion, higher intelligence in no way correlates to higher altruism.

It doesn't have to. Normal human beings with higher IQs will make better decisions as a general rule.

In your post#17 you said, " As a general rule, I would expect highly intelligent people to make better decisions.", and it begs the question: Better decisions for whom? Whatever type of society you design, you still must account for human nature and either incorporate natural drives and self-interest in such a way as to ultimately be beneficial to society as a whole, or suppress behaviors in some way that are deemed detrimental to society. Intelligence alone does not make one a good and cooperative member of society.

A society is a cooperative endeavor. Its goal is to make it easy for its citizens to survive and thrive. Highly intelligent decision-makers will make that task easier to accomplish.

Heck, maybe the sweet spot is an IQ between 110 and 130 in which there is a consistent balance between analytical and emotional intelligence, and it is these folks, in the main, that are responsible for a well-ordered and successful society.

I doubt the existence of that sweet spot. IQ tests reflect our inherited ability to reason. That isn't all we need to know about decision-makers, but its all we have.

 

[joe1776]

Also in some communities Jewel would be bullied for "acting white" if she wanted to further her education. So she gets grief from multiple sources.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the input.