Intellectual noise

There is an interesting set of pieces in the Boston Review around the issue of social mobility, all anchored on an essay by James Heckman, Promoting Social Mobility. I like Heckman's economic work and find this essay an odd contrast. In his economic work, he is rigorous and self-skeptical. The detailed studies of his which I have read are great examples of how to frame an argument, generate hypotheses, design experiments to test and how to rigorously vet one's work by seeking to argue alternate hypotheses. Elements which are lacking in this essay.

This appears to be an essay with a recommendation in mind and a loose aggregation of arguments from disparate sources which sort of appear to be consistent with the preferred conclusions. The goal is clearly a good one: given the disparities in birth circumstances, how do you prepare children so that they are likely to have equal opportunity to achieve desirable life outcomes. Regrettably, from there, the argument dissipates into a thousand different fissures with no participant having much of a well grounded, reasoned or evidentiarily supported recommendation. We agree on the goal but no one has any confidence, much less agreement, on how to go about achieving the goal. There is plenty of effort to show why Heckman's solutions would not work but there is little or no alternative advanced.

The other feature of this discussion of essays is the frustration arising from varied agendas that creep in and are at odds with the proclaimed goal. Agree or disagree with Heckman's proposed solutions, they are at least aligned with the stated goal. Rather than seeking equality of opportunity, others are far more concerned with gender equality issues, class and multicultaralism. Which is OK as a lens, but you still need to be able to generate workable solutions to the main goal otherwise you are simply shouting into an empty canyon.

Many of the commentators are really working towards entirely different goals and appear to be willing to sacrifice equality of opportunity as long as their particular goal is served. There is a complete absence of prioritization and reality in some of the discussion.

So one commenter rejects Heckman's proposals because she deems them to be demeaning of women.

Another is concerned that Heckman's proposals might work but are inappropriate because they impose white middle class cultural values.

Another argues that poverty is imposed by circumstances and inadequate resources and is not a function of values and behaviors.

Yet another acknowledges that the proposed solutions are poorly supported in terms of evidence but argues that money should be spent regardless in the hopes that something might work.

For another, the issue is clearly institutional inequities and not a function of individuals.

And so on. I have to some small degree satirized each of these positions, but shockingly not all that much. How can we make progress on real issues when no one is willing to take off their ideological glasses? How can we make progress when everyone is willing to sacrifice the good for the best? How can we progress without agreement to prioritized objectives even if they require us to make trade-offs we might not wish? And how can we make progress when there is such a willful disengagement from reality?