Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 6.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Two)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: September 15, 2014

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2015

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 4,721

ISSN 2369-6885

(Link to Part One)

(Link to Part Two)

ABSTRACT

Part three of a three-part in-depth, broad interview with Research Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Wai, of the Talent Identification Program, Duke University, and Case Western Reserve University. He discusses the following subject-matter: talent, productivity, Who’s Smarter? Republicans and Democrats in Congress (2013); success and underchallenged high-talent workers at the highest levels of ability; Is America “On The Wrong Side of History”? (2012), America as an unsustainable superpower, and educational declines in America as measured by PISA; interview with Enrico Moretti, globally competitive world while continuing to attract talent at home; concept of ‘intelligence’, measure of IQ tests, Richard Feynman, Discussions on Genius and Intelligence: Mega Foundation Interview with Arthur Jensen (2002), and Steve Hsu’s comments on Richard Feynman; societal worry about decline in STEM and educational competitiveness in a globalized world, international setting of so-called ‘soft power’, i.e. cultural influence, and ‘hard power’ advocates; additional pieces for reading; future projects; influences and inspiration; and final thoughts with a quote from Wagner.

Keywords: Dirac, Dr. Arthur Jensen, Enrico Moretti, Einstein, Gifted, Hard Power, James Watson, Mark Zuckerberg, Mega Foundation Press, PISA, Richard Feynman, Society, Soft Power, STEM, Steve Case, Steve Hsu, Talented, Vivek Wahwa, Wagner.

21. If we take the highest level of talent in a discipline, something like the top 5% of the ability spectrum tend to have the highest productivity and impact in their discipline. We could provide a concrete estimate for the amount of talent falling through the cracks of society. Did anyone provide a calculable estimate? For example, we could estimate the productivity and talent through measuring the current level of productivity and impact in a field through papers published and total citations – even per paper – for the top 5% of the ability spectrum through your estimates based on competitive undergraduate and graduate programs (Who’s Smarter? Republicans and Democrats in Congress, 2013), using the statistical estimates of the occurrence for the top 5% out of the general population, subtract the two of them, and have a relative estimate of lost/under-utilized talent out of the general population. None of this seems out of the realm of possibility to me regarding the potential of creating a standardized measure for reference when measuring the improvement of utilization of the gifted and talented at the top 5% (or any other percent for that matter). What do you think? What other means could provide an accurate picture of the societal plight of underutilized talent?

This is an interesting idea. Probably some of the strongest international evidence that the U.S. is not developing its talented students is from international comparison tests such as the PISA.

22. What do you make of the great divide between the maximum level of ability required for the most cognitively complex fields such as pure mathematics, medicine, and science, and the under-challenged gifted population with ability in excess of the mean level of ability requisite for those disciplines? In other words, for example, their field requires 1.5 or 2 SD, but they feel unchallenged because of having ability at 3 SD.

When someone has an ability level well beyond their peers they are likely to be quite successful. Yet they also may not be as challenged as they could have been had they chosen a discipline with people as smart as, or much smarter than them.

23. You note the immigration of more talent in Is America “On The Wrong Side of History”? (2012), where China sees the US as an unsustainable superpower. However, this seems unreasonable. International settings and competition, and global integration of political, economic, technological, cultural, and informational systems in the 21st century will disallow the viability of long-term immigration of the most talented, gifted, and appropriately skilled and motivated. It seems to me nations will continue to compete for the talent worldwide at an increasing rate. Of course, the US will stay attractive to the talented. Even so, this will not last, especially in light of the educational declines occurring for some time now in the US as measured by such rankings as the PISA. What do you think? Why? How might the US and Canada remedy such decline?

The solution is logical, but is not so simple to implement due to political barriers: encourage talented people to live and work in the U.S. or Canada or whatever your home country is. There is always going to be a limited supply of talented people and because they can come from anywhere the competition will be worldwide.

24. Furthermore, the interview with Enrico Moretti tells of the desire for allowing more foreign-born talent to enter into the US by such business luminaries as Vivek Wahwa, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Case, and others, which does assist the competitive streak of the nation. However, this seems more temporary, a short-term fix, with tremendous implications for the long-term if the investment in fields having higher economic return-of-investment (ROI), e.g. STEM disciplines, for the individuals and societies involved do not having adequate funding. At some point, you cannot immigrate talent in a globally competitive world if the world integrates to a sufficient level of transport, exchange of information, trade, and so forth. In an integrated global economy, it seems implausible for an indefinite period of time, and therefore I ask, what would you do for the long-term at the individual level? How can the US appear more attractive to talented Americans to stay in their country of birth?

The solution, as I have outlined in my writings, is to both develop homegrown talent as well as encourage foreign talent to come and stay. Probably the driving principle that has attracted talent from the around the world is the freedom to innovate.

25. Do you ever question the operational definition of the concept ‘intelligence’ and subsequent measurement through IQ tests? For instance, Richard Feynman claimed to have an IQ of 125. However, some replies do arise from an interview with Dr. Arthur Jensen from the ebook published by Mega Foundation Press entitled Discussions on Genius and Intelligence: Mega Foundation Interview with Arthur Jensen (2002). In particular, the late Dr. Jensen stated in the book-length interview:

I don’t take anecdotal reports of the IQs of famous persons at all seriously. They are often fictitious and are used to make a point – typically a put-down of IQ test and the whole idea that individual differences in intelligence can be ranked or measured. James Watson once claimed an IQ of 115; the daughter of another very famous Nobelist claimed that her father would absolutely “flunk” any IQ test. It’s all ridiculous. Furthermore, the outstanding feature of any famous and accomplished person, especially a reputed genius, such as Feynman, is never their level of g (or their IQ), but some special talent and some other traits (e.g., zeal, persistence). Outstanding achievement(s) depend on these other qualities besides high intelligence. (Langan et al, 2002)

As you have noted repeatedly in your writing with wit, “…The plural of anecdote is not data.” What do you think of this topic? How might others with differing ideas than you argue?

Leaving aside the label “intelligence,” I think when it comes to psychometric measurement just about every mental standardized test will measure the g factor or general mental ability to a large degree. On Feynman’s IQ, I will quote the physicist Steve Hsu, whose views I share on this topic (see my interview with him on Psychology Today):

Is it true Feynman’s IQ score was only 125?

“Feynman was universally regarded as one of the fastest thinking and most creative theorists in his generation. Yet it has been reported-including by Feynman himself-that he only obtained a score of 125 on a school IQ test. I suspect that this test emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton. It seems quite possible to me that Feynman’s cognitive abilities might have been a bit lopsided-his vocabulary and verbal ability were well above average, but perhaps not as great as his mathematical abilities. I recall looking at excerpts from a notebook Feynman kept while an undergraduate. While the notes covered very advanced topics for an undergraduate-including general relativity and the Dirac equation-it also contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.”

26. Oftentimes, the societal worry about the great decline in STEM and educational competitiveness in a globalized world seems too high. However, the pragmatic implementation of practice appears limited to me. Regardless, much of this misses some of the major areas of great influence from a nation, which tends to have the greatest level of dissemination within an international setting of so-called ‘soft power’, i.e. cultural influence. Of course, the worry about STEM arises out of global competitiveness. In other words, this seems to me to give primacy to GDP over citizenry having adequate education, but with additional benefits to citizen education. Soft power provides a foundation for similar influence in the world other than technology. Although, using the technological platforms invented or improved upon by the STEM graduates. In that, STEM graduates can assist the economic and political aims of ‘hard power’ advocates, but the platforms of technology emerging from the technological innovations of them allow the soft power influence to proliferate. Where do you see more importance – STEM or arts disciplines/hard or soft power? Or both?

It would be reasonable to think it would be both.

27. Of those pieces which I appreciate most for further reflection: Lee Smolin Encourages Graduate Student to Stay in Science, Will We Ever Find the Next Einstein?, How Do You Make An Intellectual Dream Team?, If You Are Creative, Are You Also Intelligent?, Is Spatial Intelligence Essential for Innovation and Can We Increase It Through Training?, Could We Create Another Einstein?, Is America “on the Wrong Side of History”?, How Do We Get Kids to Want to Be Einstein?, Intelligence: New Finds And Theoretical Insights (a very good interview with Dr. Diane F. Halpern), The Educational World Is Flat, Studying Too Much? This Government Will Stop You, Steve Jobs Leveraged His Intelligence To More Effectively Create, How Brainy Is Your Major, Are Elite Athletes Marrying Elite Athletes? (a great read for discussion on individual differences), How to Think Like a Scientist (good tips for general curiosity and critical thinking too), The Art of Communicating Science, Do Journalists And Academics Live In The “Real World”?, Teaching Without Words, Finding The Next Carl Sagan, Do Smart People Rule The World?, and How Science Writing Can Save Lives. Do you have any recommended reading?

Thank you! I recommend that everyone should read what they are most interested in.

28. What projects do you have in the coming years?

I am currently involved in many different research and writing projects which surround the role of talent and its impact on society.

29. Who most influenced you? Who inspires you?

The list of people who have influenced me are written on the numerous books and articles I have read so far in my lifetime.

30. To close with a quote of Wagner from your article Could We Create Another Einstein?, “Parents, teachers, mentors, and employers—we all have urgent work to do.” Do you have any final thoughts?

I don’t. Thank you for these very thoughtful questions.

Bibliography

****************Footnotes and bibliography in Archives “6.A” PDF*****************

License

In-sight by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, In-Sight, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.