Oddly enough, a recent study finds that subjective well-being is positively correlated with income, and found no satiation point; instead, a linear-log relationship is found with no satiation point identifiable.

If you are concerned, I'd try a couple of control questions in any survey, intended to weed out people who answer randomly.

If all of the things that humans can do are required for knitting and driving cars, than there are two things that humans can do, generalized to that level. If an AI could learn the hard way to drive and to knit, it would be able to do everything a human could do. I estimate that controlling vehicles is about four different skills by that definition (road vehicles, fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and reaction-mass spacecraft), but knitting, crocheting, and sewing are the same skill, and there are probably only two or three different skills that cover all of athletics (an AI that could learn to play football would probably be able to learn curling, but it might not be able to learn gymnastics or swiming)

I think that our existing AIs haven't demonstrated that they can learn to do anything the hard way. I could be wrong, because I don't have any deep insight into if existing AIs learn or are created with full knowledge.

age-sorting has almost entirely eliminated cross-age friendships. That's bad.

Nominated for largest understatement of the day.

No, you don't. Risk-aversion is legal.

What exponent is on the number of things that humans can do, generalized to the degree of "drive cars"?

Try to teach the competitor to do some things that make sense to humans and some things that do no make sense to humans, from wildly different fields. If the competitor seems to be confused by things which are confusing to people and learns things which are not confusing, it is more likely to be thinking instead of parroting.

For example, you could explain why no consistent logical system can trust itself, and the ask the competitor if they think their way of thinking is consistent; if they think it isn't, Ask them if they think that they could prove literally anything using their way of thinking. If they think it is, ask them if they would believe everything that they can prove to be true.

Thinking entities will tend to believe that they can't prove things which are false, and thus that everything that they can prove is true. Calculating entities run I to trouble with those concepts.

Less meta, one could explain the magical thinking expressed in The Secret and ask why some people believe it and others don't, along with asking why the competitor does or doesn't.

My third paragraph cautions against doing or rewarding things like students who ask for lots of help from teachers even when they can do it on their own, or vice versa.

I see no need to provide a GPA to students in order to quantify numbers for other processes. What goal is served by more information than pass/fail?

Trying to exert more effort tends to cause tension/desperation in many people; their solution is to not try so hard.

Likewise, the best way to approach a shy cat is to sit nearby and ignore it.

Maybe you should clarify that one should be cautious regarding the accidental education being provided along with the intentional education. If the system rewards people who correctly determine and perform to the minimum standard, then the system is teaching that behavior; likewise, if the implementation of the rules provides perverse incentives, the rules will be abused.

Now I like the system of narrative evaluations instead of numeric grades even more.

In addition to learning what they learn easily and what they have difficulty learning.