The James and Jewel Thought Experiment

[MikeF]

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

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.

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.

You haven't addressed my question of in who's interest the highly intelligent decision-maker will be making his/her decisions. To assume it will be for the benefit of all is naïve and probably not supported historically.

 

[joe1776]

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.

The topic hasn't moved around. I limited the scope of he discussion to the unfairness between James and Jewell based on wealth, race and gender. That limiting of the scope is what you're referring to judgmentally as reductive analysis.

You introduced other factors into the discussion that had nothing to do with wealth, race or gender. You were unable to show relevance.

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

IMO, all the governments of the world are dealing with corruption and incompetence to different degrees.

Which government(s) do you think are exceptions?

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'm sure that you understood perfectly well what you meant to ask in the previous post.

Societies are cooperative systems. The competitive free market economy serves a temporary need since a cooperative economy would need a competent government to manage it and we humans have yet to invent such a thing.

A competent government would manage a moneyless cooperative economy (call it socialism if you like).

 

[joe1776]

You haven't addressed my question of in who's interest the highly intelligent decision-maker will be making his/her decisions. To assume it will be for the benefit of all is naïve and probably not supported historically.

A decision-making process that works for the benefit of all cooperative citizens is not only possible. It's inevitable.

 

[Left Coast]

The topic hasn't moved around. I limited the scope of he discussion to the unfairness between James and Jewell based on wealth, race and gender. That limiting of the scope is what you're referring to judgmentally as reductive analysis.

You introduced other factors into the discussion that had nothing to do with wealth, race or gender. You were unable to show relevance.

That is incorrect. I did show the relevance of other factors, but you dismissed them. I also pointed out that wealth is a confounding factor when considering the effects of race or sex.

IMO, all the governments of the world are dealing with corruption and incompetence to different degrees.

Which government(s) do you think are exceptions?

Oh I agree that all governments deal with those things to varying degrees. I've never heard of a government in the real world that didn't.

So again, since we can reasonably predict we'll never entirely eliminate those issues, which government systems actually produce the best outcomes in the real world?

I'm sure that you understood perfectly well what you meant to ask in the previous thread.

I haven't interacted with you in any other thread for quite a long time. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.

Societies are cooperative systems. The competitive free market economy serves a temporary need since a cooperative economy would need a competent government to manage it and we humans have yet to invent such a thing.

A competent government would manage a moneyless cooperative economy (call it socialism if you like).

I see so you'd revert back to a sort of barter system? How would people obtain things they need or want without money?

How would the government manage these things? Again, would it be democratic? Would it be constitutional? You're saying you want it to be "cooperative," does that mean collective ownership? Would private property by outlawed? How would these rules be enforced?

How would any of this produce better outcomes for James or Jewel? Or to reduce disparities between black and white people generally?

 

[joe1776]

So again, since we can reasonably predict we'll never entirely eliminate those issues, which government systems actually produce the best outcomes in the real world?

Your logic is since it has yet to be done, it's not possible?

I see so you'd revert back to a sort of barter system? How would people obtain things they need or want without money?

Supply and demand would be a computer-assisted function of government. In return for their labor, all cooperative citizens would be provided with shelter, food, clothing, healthcare and a safe environment.

The people will collectively own all the property.

I have an NFL game coming up. I'll check in later.

 

[MikeF]

A decision-making process that works for the benefit of all cooperative citizens is not only possible. It's inevitable.

Hmmm. So you are saying that your concept of an ideal social/political system is inevitable. I guess that means there is nothing to do but sit back and let it happen then, right? There is nothing to discuss, we simply have to wait.

I would strongly disagree. I feel that our social systems require constant and concerted effort to maintain, let alone improve.

I do not believe that smart people de facto make good decisions for the benefit of all in society.

 

[Left Coast]

Your logic is since it has yet to be done, it's not possible?

No, my logic is that I'm not impressed by utopian ideas that have never produced the real world results they promise. So if someone wants to sell me on a new way of doing things, I ask for evidence.

Supply and demand would be a computer-assisted function of government.

What does that mean? The government would dictate how much supply or demand there is for all products and services? How would I obtain something I want? I would request permission from a governmentally-programmed computer?

In return for their labor, all cooperative citizens would be provided with shelter, food, clothing, healthcare and a safe environment.

The people will collectively own all the property.

I see, so private property will be outlawed.

Yeah I'll pass.

 

[Augustus]

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.

And the USSR was centralised and performed much worse.

And Switzerland is decentralised and is about the best run country on earth.

So decentralisation obviously can work.

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.

That very much depends on the judge.

A jury is hit and miss, a hanging judge is always going to hang folk.

Then you let the Very Smart hanging judge create the rules to the game for selecting the next judges and you get a much worse result.

Your desire to have Very Smart People create the rules to the game and lock them in guarantees you will be locking in errors in some parts of the system.

 

[joe1776]

Hmmm. So you are saying that your concept of an ideal social/political system is inevitable. I guess that means there is nothing to do but sit back and let it happen then, right? There is nothing to discuss, we simply have to wait.

No, you're taking my comment and jumping to extreme conclusions.

I would strongly disagree. I feel that our social systems require constant and concerted effort to maintain, let alone improve.

IMO, our current system is like a stagecoach. I don't think that repairing it will help much. We need a more modern vehicle.

I do not believe that smart people de facto make good decisions for the benefit of all in society

.Nor do I. But high IQ is one of the important factors in selecting decision-makers.

 

[joe1776]

No, my logic is that I'm not impressed by utopian ideas that have never produced the real world results they promise. So if someone wants to sell me on a new way of doing things, I ask for evidence.

Unlike your earlier comment, this one makes sense.

What does that mean? The government would dictate how much supply or demand there is for all products and services? How would I obtain something I want? I would request permission from a governmentally-programmed computer?

Your needs would be provided anywhere you live. All cooperative citizens would be the same. I don't know about special requests. That's nit-picky stuff I haven't considered.

I see, so private property will be outlawed.

Yes, of course.

Yeah I'll pass.

If the public votes for this by a national referendum, you might then go to another country if you are opposed.

 

[Left Coast]

Your needs would be provided anywhere you live. All cooperative citizens would be the same. I don't know about special requests. That's nit-picky stuff I haven't considered.

I'm not asking about "nit-picky stuff." I'm asking about daily purchases that happen millions of times daily in this country. I go I go the grocery store and select the items I want and purchase them. I buy a car that is the make and model and color I desire. I purchase internet and TV service from this carrier instead of that one.

If you haven't considered how those requests would be managed, and think everyone's requests are going to be same or that they'll be just fine with everyone's allocation from a government computer being the same, you are fooling yourself.

"All cooperative citizens would be the same."

You are literally describing the stuff of dystopian teen novels.

Is this serious? Are you pulling our leg?

If the public votes for this by a national referendum, you might then go to another country if you are opposed.

 

[joe1776]

And the USSR was centralised and performed much worse.

And Switzerland is decentralised and is about the best run country on earth.

So decentralisation obviously can work.

The hierarchy is a power tool. It can create or destroy. You can't point to an example of misuse (USSR) and say "See, hierarchies don't work!"

That very much depends on the judge.

Of course, but the advice give by U.S. lawyers relies on Probability.

Your desire to have Very Smart People create the rules to the game and lock them in guarantees you will be locking in errors in some parts of the system.

In the USA and most of the world, we have not very smart and corrupt people screwing with the system.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not asking about "nit-picky stuff." I'm asking about daily purchases that happen millions of times daily in this country. I go I go the grocery store and select the items I want and purchase them. I buy a car that is the make and model and color I desire. I purchase internet and TV service from this carrier instead of that one.

As I wrote in my previous post, as a cooperative ciizen, your NEEDS would be provided.

If you haven't considered how those requests would be managed, and think everyone's requests are going to be same or that they'll be just fine with everyone's allocation from a government computer being the same, you are fooling yourself.

I've thought about this for years. You for ten minutes. Should I take your objections seriously?

 

[MikeF]

.Nor do I. But high IQ is one of the important factors in selecting decision-makers.

What if we judge or select on demonstrated ability and track record instead of a metric like an IQ test. The score of an IQ test almost seems immaterial. I just don't see that someone with an IQ of 120 will always be less capable than one of 130, and that less capable than one of 140. Since who we are, how we behave, and the values we come to acquire are so heavily multi-factorial, it seems it would simply be best to have a system that lets everyone grow to their potential, and in such an environment there will be qualified candidates for all kinds of leadership, decision-making, and knowledge expanding positions.

 

[Left Coast]

As I wrote in my previous post, as a cooperative ciizen, your NEEDS would be provided.

Right, my "needs" determined by a computer and which would be considered identical to everyone else's.

That's literal dystopian novel stuff. You even have the Orwellian language down. People who sit down and shut up and do what you tell them are "cooperative citizens." People who protest the literal communist society you want to create are "uncooperative."

I've thought about this for years. You for ten minutes. Should I take your objections seriously?

You've thought about this wild fantasy for years and you haven't considered how people's differing preferences would be managed? Jesus Chris dude, what the hell have you been thinking about? Should I take you seriously if you can't answer the most basic questions about how all this would work?

 

[joe1776]

What if we judge or select on demonstrated ability and track record instead of a metric like an IQ test. The score of an IQ test almost seems immaterial.

We have a system like that now. Voters have no idea of a candidate's IQ. They select people based on their track record and their purported positions. They choose poorly.

I just don't see that someone with an IQ of 120 will always be less capable than one of 130, and that less capable than one of 140.

If you think in terms of one decision, you're right. But if you think about 10,000 decisions, there will be a small difference.

 

[MikeF]

We have a system like that now. Voters have no idea of a candidate's IQ. They select people based on their track record and their purported positions. They choose poorly.

If you think in terms of one decision, you're right. But if you think about 10,000 decisions, there will be a small difference.

Are you saying that those who you deem poor candidates that are current and historical office holders overwhelmingly had inadequate or insufficient IQ? Of all the candidates who you deem to be worthy (whether elected or not), do they all meet your criteria of sufficiently high IQ? What is your IQ cut-off by the way?

 

[joe1776]

Are you saying that those who you deem poor candidates that are current and historical office holders overwhelmingly had inadequate or insufficient IQ?

Of course not, Mike. That would be a stupid conclusion.

Of all the candidates who you deem to be worthy (whether elected or not), do they all meet your criteria of sufficiently high IQ? What is your IQ cut-off by the way?

I favor candidates who seem to be very bright and fall into the progressive camp but IQ information is not available.

 

[MikeF]

Of course not, Mike. That would be a stupid conclusion.

And yet, do you see where I was going with that line of questioning? Fixating on IQ is a guarantee of nothing.

I favor candidates who seem to be very bright and fall into the progressive camp but IQ information is not available.

Which seems to be in line with my selecting based on demonstrated ability and track record.

The problem, it seems, (since you feel the track record of quality candidates being elected is poor) is with the electorate and not with the IQ of prospective candidates.

Is the electorate "fixable" in your opinion, or is it something we simply have to accept and live with?

 

[joe1776]

And yet, do you see where I was going with that line of questioning? Fixating on IQ is a guarantee of nothing.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I was fixating on IQ? What did I write that gave you that Idea? IQ is an important factor in decision-making. I didn't say it was the ONLY factor.

The problem, it seems, (since you feel the track record of quality candidates being elected is poor) is with the electorate and not with the IQ of prospective candidates.

The electorate is half the problem. The other half is that the political parties are often offering voters a choice between Dumb and Dumberer.

Our system is better than the authoritarian regimes of other nations. That's about all we can say for it.