Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact who says that he taught himself mathematics, physics, cosmology and the cognitive sciences. Various media sources report Langan as having an estimated IQ of 195. which approximately correlates to the 99.9999998548th percentile. For example, Langan scored "off the charts" when tested by Dr. Robert Novelly. Novelly, a board certified neuropsychologist, commented that Langan was "the highest individual that I've ever measured in 25 years" of testing. Langan appeared in filmmaker Errol Morris' The Smartest Man in the World episode of the television documentary series "First Person." Langan also appeared in one episode of Walker, Texas Ranger. With only a small amount of college, Langan has held a variety of labor-intensive jobs including construction worker, cowboy, firefighter, farmhand, and perhaps most famously, bar bouncer. Langan, who grew up in Montana, currently owns and operates a horse ranch in northern Missouri. Langan has written question and answer columns for New York Newsday, The Improper Hamptonian and Men's Fitness. In 2001 Langan was featured in Popular Science magazine, where he discussed a concept he developed and promotes which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).
Hate to break it to you but, everybody here already has a 200 IQ and can bench at least 500 pounds.
When I was seven I weighed 376.5 pounds shredded. They measured me at -10 % bodyfat. Sounds impossible but it's true. My mother just filed a paternity suit on Chuck Norris. 8)
Hate to break it to you but, everybody here already has a 200 IQ and can bench at least 500 pounds.
He's probably a very intelligent man but his I.Q. is definitely not 200 and he's definitely not the "smartest man in the world" by any means. I.Q. isn't a very reliable way to measure 'intelligence' to begin. Not that 'intelligence' can even adequately be defined. Anyone who tries to claim that they are more intelligent because they scored high on an I.Q. test should instantly be dismissed as not that intelligent (Which he may not do, I don't know). He has some pretty kooky ideas that can easily be proven to be false as well. The videos look like it came from a TLC documentary. We all know how reliable TLC is, remember the "The man who's arms exploded" documentary?
He says he doubts anyone out there is smarter than he is.
After offering such profound tidbits as, "centipedes have small brains, they aren't smart; cats have larger heads; they are slightly smarter; monkeys have even larger heads; they are smarter still...there is a correlation between head size and intelligence."
I'm not convinced.
Scoring high on an I.Q. test generally means you're just good at taking I.Q. tests opposed to actually having a high 'intelligence'. However intelligence is even defined.
He also said that dipping his head in the water would provide information about his brain volume using the 'Archimedes' principle' when in reality water displacement would only show the volume of his skull not his brain.
No that's not true. A dumb person is not going to score high on an IQ test they are not familiar with. If you are able to solve very difficult problems on an IQ test without seeing the specific questions before hand you are generally very smart.
To most people it's pretty damn simple dude. It means you can solve complex problems quickly and easily. Sounds like you're making excuses for the dumbasses.
No. I'm simply saying that solving the problems quickly on an I.Q. test doesn't necessarily mean you're smart. There are also a lot of reasons why someone who is intelligent could score low on an I.Q test and include dyslexia, learning abilities, reading abilities, even eyesight or cultural circumstances. I.Q. tests have changed little in over 50 years. The fields of neuro science have made great strides in the past 50 years and most I.Q. tests are the same as they always have been.
If someone has learning disabilities they aren't smart. That's a given.
And yes, if someone is blind or can't speak english they won't score well either. ::)
The guy says that he came up with some new theory on neural-networking and artificial intelligence and had it all on a notepad and while working as a bar bouncer went to break up a fight and set the pad down and when he came back the pad was gone and he can't remember what he wrote on it. How convenient! As if someone would try to steal a paper pad with a bunch of scientific theories on it in a bar!
I do defend IQ test results as they relate to intelligence, but that is in part due to having a high IQ and so I might be a little biased. However, I honestly feel I am being objective when I say that IQ tests are good indicators of intelligence. My bias may be subconscious.
The tests are not "invalid" however they are not as reliable as most people make them seem. The fact is, Someone who scores a 150 or 160 I.Q. or higher on some I.Q. test isn't necessarily a genius let alone an intelligent person. A person who scores below 100 isn't necessarily ignorant either.
Kim Peek for example he is a savant with eidetic memory but also has learning disabilities. He has scored well below average on I.Q. tests however he is still one of the most intelligent people on the planet. He can read a 300 page book in about an hour and can remember over 98% of what he reads. He is also a human calculator and can teach himself to play any instrument with professionally ability in a few hours. He was the guy who the movie "Rain man" was based on.
More info on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek)
We already said it's a good indicator of general intelligence.
Kim Peek's overall intelligence is very low, so low in fact that he can't function as a normal person in society, thus the low IQ score. Freak examples don't mean someone scoring very high on the test is not very smart. Exceptions prove the rule. I do think there are many aspects of intelligence as I mentioned earlier, but the fact is, IQ test ARE a good indicator of general intellect.
Oh brother, I've never seen such an epic display of semantics in my life.
"General" by definition would mean a test comprised of questions covering different aspects of intelligence and averaging the results.
I don't see why this is so difficult, but it feels like you have an agenda.
Obviously Kim is genius when it comes to specific aspects of intelligence, but his overall intelligence is that of a retard.
The test correctly indicated this.
You're going to have to be more specific. What all areas of intelligence does "general intelligence" entail? Which would Peek not have?
Verbal for one.
I didn't write the test, but obviously he couldn't score well on the material. His general intellect is low, and you can tell this simply by watching him attempt to function on his own in society. It's a rediculous exercise in semantics arguing with you. Obviously you have an agenda Martin.
How does "verbal" ability have anything to do with intelligence? What definition of "intelligence" would include "verbal ability"? A lot of people are highly intelligent but not articulate.
Also, I have no "agenda" other than to point out that Intelligence tests aren't very reliable for gaging intelligence (Which is generally ambiguously defined to begin with).
::)
Again...overall intelligence.
We already said it's a good indicator of general intelligence.
Kim Peek's overall intelligence is very low, so low in fact that he can't function as a normal person in society, thus the low IQ score. Freak examples don't mean someone scoring very high on the test is not very smart. Exceptions prove the rule. I do think there are many aspects of intelligence as I mentioned earlier, but the fact is, IQ test ARE a good indicator of general intellect.
This guy took a 48 question IQ test in a newspaper, claims a 200 IQ, yet never graduated from college because he couldn't figure out how to generate the funds. He's says successful people are stupid. Now he says he's unlocking the secrets of the universe despite never demonstrating any mathematical knowledge on paper. He works as a bouncer and calls himself a bodybuilder with a 500 bench press, bodyfat in the double digits, and a face like Ron Jeremy.
Oh, and he rides a Harley ;D(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j51/realkarateblackbelt/chris.jpg)
Interview Part 1:&mode=related&search=
Interview Part 2:("I wasn't invited to graduation because my cranial circumference was too big.")&mode=related&search=
Interview Part 3:("I would implant something like the Manhattan project in children at age 10 to prevent undesirables. Put me in charge.")&mode=related&search=
FIRST OF ALL JUST LET ME SAY THAT THIS GUY CREEPED THE HELL OUT OF ME....WHY??? I WAS WAITING ON HIM TO START HIS NEW WORLD ORDER SPEECH AT ANY MOMENT.
His references to population control and elimination of people to a given level is one of the main stays of those involved in the NEW WORLD ORDER mindset. Having to "APPLY" to have children to make sure that you have no diseases or that no one has the "RIGHT" to have children because they want to????
Removing GOD and FAITH from all things and depending totally on supposed intelligence is another of the examples of the FREEMASONS and those dedicated to that new world order nonsense. Since MASONS are die hard SATANIST that last thig they want to promote is GOD and the more they can bury the idea of a GOD the better...
Claiming to know what the world needs in order to be a better place yet be unable or unwilling to give examples of how to accomplish this task is classic NWO mentality...reminds me of those SKULL AND BONES CLOWNS who keep everything a secret, because the methods that they would like to implement to bring the NWO ideas into place would be so draconian and detrimental to the population that it would traumatize the masses and create chaos in the masses....so they gradually implement things a little at a time under the guise of it making society better....YEAH RIGHT!!!
The old CRANIAL SIZE equals higher intelligence argument die years ago when it was found untrue...however going back to the MASONS and thier love of HITLER ressurects this idea. Hitler believed in the notion that a certain cranial size was an indication of intelligence and potential intelligence and if one did not fit within the guidelines of size they were eliminated.
Add to the Mahattan Project other government sponsored programs to mind control and create "IDEAL PEOPLE" in such things as... THE SLEEP ROOM, EWEN CAMERON, MKULTRA, GEORGIA GUIDE STONES, PROJECT ARTICHOKE, KAY GRIGGS, etc and the like and it gets pretty scary.
This guy is no genius and is certainly no smarter than the average JOE...He is a BULLSHITTER though. Someone who I would bet anything belongs to one of those MASONIC lodges and is caught up in their dementia about CHANGING THE WORLD... His conversation is below average in my opinion, makes no mathematical or scientific references at all...a hallmark of savants is the math science tie in in everything they do and talk about....that is unless they are a musical savant. He claims he left college based on what others were doing...roomates involved in sex, violence etc...then claims it was financial why he left....IF HE WERE SO SMART ANY COLLEGE WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A FULL SCHOLARSHIP AND SINCE SAVANTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP SECRET, OTHER COLLEGES WOULD HAVE BEEN CLAMORING TO GET HIM ENROLLED AT THEIR INSTITUTIONS AS WELL....this guy is a complete LIAR....WHAT A JOKE!!!!!! Some one put a bullet in 'em and end his suffering...
Terman's study of individuals who had IQ over 150 in California concluded that those individuals as a group were better adapted, happier, taller, better looking, etc., than the general population. Most were better educated, successful and earned more than average people.
Go and read Terman's books on the subject.
Terman and others pioneered studying those of high intelligence. I will have to do more reading myself.
http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/Outsiders.html
Genius is not equated with high IQ but with having demonstrated exceptional ability in some way.
For some peculiar reason the less gifted seldom accept that the gifted are actually superior to themselves.
You're kookier than he is...
No. I'm simply saying that solving the problems quickly on an I.Q. test doesn't necessarily mean you're smart. There are also a lot of reasons why someone who is intelligent could score low on an I.Q test and include dyslexia, learning abilities, reading abilities, even eyesight or cultural circumstances. I.Q. tests have changed little in over 50 years. The fields of neuro science have made great strides in the past 50 years and most I.Q. tests are the same as they always have been.
So you believe this guy is as intelligent as he claims? Provide proof he is? Given his conversation... point out the theories, assumptions, mindset, ideas, rationale that points to someone of superior intelligence? Based on the footage, the guy's a self glorifying social misfit, who has delusions of grandeur based upon a disturbed and violent youth. The fact that his conversation is without IDEAS or the referencing of "HIGHER THOUGHTS" reveals his "thinking" is average if not below average. Notice also that his thoughts are all about the DESTRUCTION OF LIFE and not the advancing, developing, bettering of life.Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper on light and relativity working in a swiss patent office as a clerk and had NO REFERENCES!
Lame jobs and a life that has not amounted to much has made him delusional and he dreams of being a "SUPERHERO" with advanced intelligence...I guess he is the FIFTH X MAN. Take a look at the Prometheus society, The MENSA society and the like...they all are secretive societies that for all intents and purposes play no role in society's betterment. They have groups and highly exclusive organizations, but are never referenced as a source of knowledge, thought, ideas or anything. What good is INTELLIGENCE if it is not being used for anything profitable? Can any of them think of a new energy source? A new way to utilize fuels more efficiently? Can they think of new manufacturing/processing way to manufacture goods without pollution or with greatly reduced pollution. Can they come up with ways to clean up the environment? How about new methods of transportation? 200 MPG cars, trucks and buses? Cure for diseases? Something...? Anything of value that can be used?... Notice that such ideas always come from those who are of only slightly higher intelligence than average...and if the those only slightly higher intelligence can come up with innovative ideas... then why cant these individuals do the same and more?...
BTW...look into the organizations/programs/people/tests I mentioned in this and my other post to see how kooky you are for not knowing they exist....
FIRST OF ALL JUST LET ME SAY THAT THIS GUY CREEPED THE HELL OUT OF ME....WHY??? I WAS WAITING ON HIM TO START HIS NEW WORLD ORDER SPEECH AT ANY MOMENT.
His references to population control and elimination of people to a given level is one of the main stays of those involved in the NEW WORLD ORDER mindset. Having to "APPLY" to have children to make sure that you have no diseases or that no one has the "RIGHT" to have children because they want to????
Removing GOD and FAITH from all things and depending totally on supposed intelligence is another of the examples of the FREEMASONS and those dedicated to that new world order nonsense. Since MASONS are die hard SATANIST that last thig they want to promote is GOD and the more they can bury the idea of a GOD the better...
Claiming to know what the world needs in order to be a better place yet be unable or unwilling to give examples of how to accomplish this task is classic NWO mentality...reminds me of those SKULL AND BONES CLOWNS who keep everything a secret, because the methods that they would like to implement to bring the NWO ideas into place would be so draconian and detrimental to the population that it would traumatize the masses and create chaos in the masses....so they gradually implement things a little at a time under the guise of it making society better....YEAH RIGHT!!!
The old CRANIAL SIZE equals higher intelligence argument die years ago when it was found untrue...however going back to the MASONS and thier love of HITLER ressurects this idea. Hitler believed in the notion that a certain cranial size was an indication of intelligence and potential intelligence and if one did not fit within the guidelines of size they were eliminated.
Add to the Mahattan Project other government sponsored programs to mind control and create "IDEAL PEOPLE" in such things as... THE SLEEP ROOM, EWEN CAMERON, MKULTRA, GEORGIA GUIDE STONES, PROJECT ARTICHOKE, KAY GRIGGS, etc and the like and it gets pretty scary.
This guy is no genius and is certainly no smarter than the average JOE...He is a BULLSHITTER though. Someone who I would bet anything belongs to one of those MASONIC lodges and is caught up in their dementia about CHANGING THE WORLD... His conversation is below average in my opinion, makes no mathematical or scientific references at all...a hallmark of savants is the math science tie in in everything they do and talk about....that is unless they are a musical savant. He claims he left college based on what others were doing...roomates involved in sex, violence etc...then claims it was financial why he left....IF HE WERE SO SMART ANY COLLEGE WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A FULL SCHOLARSHIP AND SINCE SAVANTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP SECRET, OTHER COLLEGES WOULD HAVE BEEN CLAMORING TO GET HIM ENROLLED AT THEIR INSTITUTIONS AS WELL....this guy is a complete LIAR....WHAT A JOKE!!!!!! Some one put a bullet in 'em and end his suffering...
i wouldn't be one to talk freak
author=legbreaker link=topic=147575.msg2066561#msg2066561 date=117877912CPI!!! Miss that place. You know my boy John Hickey from The Tavern? PM me.
I bounced at Summers and CPI in the hamptons NY with him and the guy has ALWAY been known for his brilliance, this is nothing new.
Or just good at solving I.Q. test problems. Incredibly stupid people probably won't be good at solving I.Q. tests and I guess I.Q. tests are a good way to root out some of the incredibly stupid people, however as intelligence increases I.Q. tests become less reliable. Not that "intelligence" can easily even be adequately defined to begin with. Intelligence is a fairly ambiguous term in academic circles and could mean any number of different things.Agree. Well said. In my time, I've been fortunate to have met some 'brilliant' men and women, and the one thing that is common to all is a 'humbleness' in regards to 'intelligence' -ie. their search for 'knowledge' is more a means, not an end in itself; it is not finite nor is it easily quantifiable. So hearing about people like this guy should set off alarm bells.
You're going to have to be more specific. What all areas of intelligence does "general intelligence" entail? Which would Peek not have?
Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper on light and relativity working in a swiss patent office as a clerk and had NO REFERENCES!
Newton did his early work in physics walking around his farm in rural England. Great minds are born and can come from anywhere.
Technology is the practical application of science and theory and that often takes lots of $$$$ and organization. Howard
This guy is legit and is working on the unified field theroy of the universe. IQ tests are a reliable indication of cognitive ability. Learning disabilities are diagnosed with a full cognitive work up and included in the assessment, etc.
Do you think this guy has a legit 200 iq Debussey?
I take it you guys don't run in the intelligence circles, eh?
Chris Langan is widely regarded as an extremely intelligent person.
If you've ever heard of the Mega foundation, you would know who he is.
Chris has been given MANY IQ tests, by many of the most recognized IQ test creators of all time.
Board-certified neuropsychologist Dr. Robert Novelly tested Langan's IQ for 20/20, which reported that Langan broke the ceiling of the test. Dr. Novelly said, Chris is the highest individual that I have ever measured in 25 years of doing this.
His wife Gina also has an incredibily high IQ, and works as a clinical neuropsychologist
His CTMU is a VERY interesting piece of work, and creates some very definite debates on everything from what created god, to why are we here.
He earned a PERFECT SCORE ON THE SAT, is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), Created the Mega foundation, has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference, and contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, an essay collection of works that question Darwinian evolution edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.
Langan is no joke.
I had a look at that CTMU and wasn't impressed. It is obvious he is not a philosopher but a clever guy using words. It remains to be seen if he will impact on knowledge. If he ventures into ID then he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
I had a look at that CTMU and wasn't impressed. It is obvious he is not a philosopher but a clever guy using words. It remains to be seen if he will impact on knowledge. If he ventures into ID then he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.I agree.
I agree.
He is actually trying to steal Hawking`s work and use it in a pseudo-religious way. Langan is wrong on a great deal of his pontifications when held up to Hawking`s works.
Very amusing this Langan is. He is a good comedian.
And to SAMSON123: Have you ever thought about the fact that having an above average intelligence means that you have certain communication needs that normal people often can not help you fulfill?The D-Man makes some good points, but I've always viewed Mensa, and like organizations, with a bit of distaste. Intelligence is not something to be quantified, or a product to lord over other people (and those in Mensa are the first to shove it to the forefront of any conversation as if in warning) but something to be humbled by and respected. In that light, Mensa is like a middle-class social construct built in retaliation to the upper-classes' hermetic snobbishness and exclusionary policies -ie. if we can't belong to your club, we'll make our own and exclude others as we have been excluded. Sad. I live in close proximity to a superb uni and I bet a straw poll would show that most of the profs don't belong to such an organization, not do they care to.
People very interested in poker needs to communicate with other poker players, people with musical interests needs to communicate and play with other musicians.
People having a Mensa level intelligence can at times be pretty fucking lonely at times, because they live a lot of their life in their own heads with thoughts they can not discuss with normal people.
Thus, high IQ societies = a place where people with a special gift can meet and talk. It's not about being a cocky asshole, it's about having the chance to meet similar to yourself, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But don't you know Matt C??? If you have learning disabilities, dyslexia, blindness, or can't speak english;
you won't do well.
Thus the test are invalid. ::)
Your post is incorrect. It is frequently people with above and beyond normal IQ's upwards of 150 that have issues functioning in society...
How does "verbal" ability have anything to do with intelligence? What definition of "intelligence" would include "verbal ability"? A lot of people are highly intelligent but not articulate.
hahahahahaa, they did a story on this clown on our local news here in St. Louis because the guy lives here in Missouri apparently, there is NO WAY IN HELL that this guy benched 500, i also don't believe that his IQ is anywhere near 200, i'd say maybe the 160's.
The D-Man makes some good points, but I've always viewed Mensa, and like organizations, with a bit of distaste. Intelligence is not something to be quantified, or a product to lord over other people (and those in Mensa are the first to shove it to the forefront of any conversation as if in warning) but something to be humbled by and respected. In that light, Mensa is like a middle-class social construct built in retaliation to the upper-classes' hermetic snobbishness and exclusionary policies -ie. if we can't belong to your club, we'll make our own and exclude others as we have been excluded. Sad. I live in close proximity to a superb uni and I bet a straw poll would show that most of the profs don't belong to such an organization, not do they care to.
The thing that people don't understand is how the "severly gifted" can struggle to converse with normal people.
The average person has an IQ of 100. A mentally handicapped person has an IQ of 70.
A normal person has a difficult time understanding what a retard will comprehend, and accept in conversations.
That is an IQ difference of 30.
People like Chris Langan, Kevin Langdon, Nathan from IHIQS, and others above the 165 IQ mark are as much as 100 IQ points above the average person.
It has been said that only those with IQs over 165 have the ability for "new thought." The rest of us are just working through thought that is already here. It is the rare mind that can create "new thought."
It is these rare minds that have been ostracized throughout history, and on some level, continue to be today.
The truth is that these extreme ends of the bell curve are the only people who truly have a basis to be the yardstick for morals, as comprehension of what is moral is in proportion with one's level of intelligence.
Unfortunately the "moral guidelines" of societies throughout history have only fought against these minds.
The CTMU is an astounding piece of work....from what I've been told....because the truth of the matter is that neither I, Vince Basille, or the vast majority of humans have the cognitive ability to truly understand what it says.
If he has an IQ of 200 he's a fvcking waste...
Please explain.
He's created a theoretic model explaining "everything" in the universe.
It has created waves throughout the intellectual community.
Are you mad that he hasn't cured cancer?
And to SAMSON123: Have you ever thought about the fact that having an above average intelligence means that you have certain communication needs that normal people often can not help you fulfill?
People very interested in poker needs to communicate with other poker players, people with musical interests needs to communicate and play with other musicians.
People having a Mensa level intelligence can at times be pretty fucking lonely at times, because they live a lot of their life in their own heads with thoughts they can not discuss with normal people.
Thus, high IQ societies = a place where people with a special gift can meet and talk. It's not about being a cocky asshole, it's about having the chance to meet similar to yourself, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I'm mad that he didn't use .004% of his brain power to make his life more comfortable, like get a job outside of a bar, so he can think up his big ideas in peace. Surely someone with such a perfect understanding of the universe would be able to calculate the complex factors affecting a stock price or something...and before you spout of that he doesn't need money or a better job...he says flat out in that interview that he would get out of construction and bouncing if he could
His wife makes plenty of money, they both make money off the mega foundation, he doesn't need to do that anymore.
That article is pretty old at this point.
He is a bit of an enigma, he kind of wasted his potential for years doing jobs such as construction. It wasn't until fairly recently that he put his efforts into anything with monetary value.
was he a genius at the time of the interview and the 40 plus years leading up to it?
I believe you are misunderstanding what genius is..Being a genius doesn't mean you are necessarily going to make more money, live a life of bliss, or win in everything you do. Lots of geniuses have ended up destitute or poor. As an example, look at some of the famous writers in history. Genius simply means being able to look at things in a different way, and having a profound talent in a specific area. Mozart may have been a musical genius but that wouldn't mean he could go out and automatically get any job he wanted and make as much money as he wanted. The difference between many wealthy people and geniuses is that wealthy people are often preoccupied with money whereas geniuses get their satisfaction from exercising their talent. Case in point-William James Sidis. Perhaps, the greatest IQ the world will ever see but all he wanted to do was be left alone. He ended up dying in his 40s an apparent failure because he didn't do anything shocking to save or cure the world. The question is, was he really a failure?
I believe you are misunderstanding what genius is..Being a genius doesn't mean you are necessarily going to make more money, live a life of bliss, or win in everything you do. Lots of geniuses have ended up destitute or poor. As an example, look at some of the famous writers in history. Genius simply means being able to look at things in a different way, and having a profound talent in a specific area. Mozart may have been a musical genius but that wouldn't mean he could go out and automatically get any job he wanted and make as much money as he wanted. The difference between many wealthy people and geniuses is that wealthy people are often preoccupied with money whereas geniuses get their satisfaction from exercising their talent. Case in point-William James Sidis. Perhaps, the greatest IQ the world will ever see but all he wanted to do was be left alone. He ended up dying in his 40s an apparent failure because he didn't do anything shocking to save or cure the world. The question is, was he really a failure?
I agree.
He is actually trying to steal Hawking`s work and use it in a pseudo-religious way. Langan is wrong on a great deal of his pontifications when held up to Hawking`s works.
Very amusing this Langan is. He is a good comedian.
Please explain.LOL. Every noted thinker from ancient times to the present has taken their shot at a 'Grand Theory.' They all fall well short. I have no doubt his will too.
He's created a theoretic model explaining "everything" in the universe.
It has created waves throughout the intellectual community.
Are you mad that he hasn't cured cancer?
They measured me at -11.33 % bodyfat.
I am not misunderstanding...the man claims to be able to see complex patterns, interconnections etc. that no one else can...combine that with the fact that he didn't really want to be a construction worker or a bouncer and would "do something else if he could" should sound strange...he was NOT content exercising his talent (whatever the fuck that means...he's not a musical genius or a number cruncher...he's a thinker, hardly an exercise by any stretch); matter of fact, he wanted to do something else...
A failure is defined by someone who is unable to achieve their goals. If your Mr. Sidis' goal was to die at 40 having accomplished nothing, then no, he was not a failure.
If egghead's goal was to bounce at a bar and "understand the universe" on the side, then he isn't a failure. Unfortunately, he says in that interview that he didn't particularly like doing that line of work = failure. ESPECIALLY when he's that talented intellectually.
As an aside, while this dude may be smart he's wrong on a few things:
1. He believes people with very high intelligences are more fit to decide the fate of humankind. This is tragically flawed logic. Intelligence has no correlation to morality, selflessness etc. If a ultra intelligent guy can get stuck working construction and drop out of college, he could surely fuck up the affairs of the world population should he have control of it.
2. He believes he can prove the existence of God. Not God as Albert Einstein and other modern scientists refer to it (Albert Einstein referred to the universe and its beauty as "God"; Einstein was an atheist), but a "being" with intelligence. This is very very flawed and sets him apart from today's great minds...
This guy took a 48 question IQ test in a newspaper, claims a 200 IQ, yet never graduated from college because he couldn't figure out how to generate the funds. He's says successful people are stupid. Now he says he's unlocking the secrets of the universe despite never demonstrating any mathematical knowledge on paper. He works as a bouncer and calls himself a bodybuilder with a 500 bench press, bodyfat in the double digits, and a face like Ron Jeremy.
Oh, and he rides a Harley ;D(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j51/realkarateblackbelt/chris.jpg)
Interview Part 1:&mode=related&search=
Interview Part 2:("I wasn't invited to graduation because my cranial circumference was too big.")&mode=related&search=
Interview Part 3:("I would implant something like the Manhattan project in children at age 10 to prevent undesirables. Put me in charge.")&mode=related&search=
The problem with Langan's claim of possesing an I.Q of 195 is that the statistical probability of scoring that high is one in a billion...for White Males! You see, White Males have the highest average I.Q of all groups except East Asians and Askenazi Jews. The actual statistical probability of scoring 195 in adult age, in the Stanford-Binet scale, which has a standard-deviation of 16, is one in 5 billion.
The reason for this is that the average I.Q of humanity is not 100, which is the average for White Males, but 87. In other words, it is impossible for him to have an I.Q of 195, because there are less than half a billion White Males in the World. The most intelligent person in the World is probably an Asian. The reason is that there are roughly one billion Asian Males in the World, and since their average I.Q is 105, then the smartest East Asian male must have an I.Q of 202, in a scale with a standard-deviation of 16.
this is the proof: you don't have any clue about statistics and on't know what you're talking about.
Suckmymuscle,,, Who are you doubting, Chris or the actual many testers he has been tested by that make the claims?
You do understand that these are well documented and have been spoken about on tv, right?
You mentioned fields medal winners....Do you know if Ted Kazinsky was one. I thought I read that he was, but not sure.
yes this post is spot on. i like to think of myself as somewhat intelligent and have maintained a 4.0 in school while doing neuroscience, then off to medschool. however, i find it amusing that some people on here are critizing the work like they can even comprehend it. ahah. vince basile doesnt even know what the fuck chris is saying, nor his main thesis.For someone who considers himself intelligent, you would think using caps would be possible.
i cant even comprehend in terms of a working model what he is trying to say, nor can i make any valid points about it. its like all the meatheads who think they can explain M-theory, without knowing a fucking speck of mathematics.
and LMAO at adonis, with his pseudo intellect non-sense.
adonis, in your own words desribe the problems with this theory and possible improvments.
no one here can actually critique this theory.
but vince basile is unimpressed ahahahahahahahahhahahaha ha delusion is bliss.
alienssuckedmybrainout just 2 hints:
-standard deviation
-Intelligence is a construct
-there is not only one iq-scale..
Intelligence Quotient is a construct, intelligence isn't.
How incredibly creative, you anal queen... ::)
So what's your point? That's what I said.
Yes, to post-moderns like you, everything is a social contruct. Unfortunately for you, this is false. Intelligence is real, and it is a biological property. Saying that intelligence is a construct is like saying that monkeys could build spaceships or nuclear weapons if only they were given the right societal stimulation and environment. It is a capacity of large and myelinated brains that allow them to abstract, to induce concepts, create epistemological systems, cure diseases and develop existencial problems.
..
This is the reason why I especifically mentioned the Stanford-Binet I.Q scale, and even mentioned that it has a standard-deviation of 16, you incredible dumbass.
Now, after this brutal ownage, I think you should shut the fuck up, pay your dues and don't talk shit about Getbig veterans like yours truly. >:(
SUCKMYMUSCLE
"Debussey agrees 100% that everybody with above average intelligence should be humble about it and cherish their gift, while respecting other people as equals"
Since Debussey doesn't respect other people as equals it means he is not as gifted as he thinks he is!
He solved that Rubic's cube in two hours, the same time Einstein took, except that Einstein was in his thirties when he did it, while Kim was nine years old!
The rubiks cube was invented in 1974, while Einstein was 30 years old in 1909 and died in 1955.hahah
The problem with Langan's claim of possesing an I.Q of 195 is that the statistical probability of scoring that high is one in a billion...for White Males! You see, White Males have the highest average I.Q of all groups except East Asians and Askenazi Jews. The actual statistical probability of scoring 195 in adult age, in the Stanford-Binet scale, which has a standard-deviation of 16, is one in 5 billion.
The reason for this is that the average I.Q of humanity is not 100, which is the average for White Males, but 87. In other words, it is impossible for him to have an I.Q of 195, because there are less than half a billion White Males in the World. The most intelligent person in the World is probably an Asian. The reason is that there are roughly one billion Asian Males in the World, and since their average I.Q is 105, then the smartest East Asian male must have an I.Q of 202, in a scale with a standard-deviation of 16.
This individual is Kim Ung-Yong, frm South Korea. He could walk at six months old, and could read before his second birthday. At the age of four, he could read and write in six different languages, and had mastered algebra. At the age of six, he could write in nine different languages, and could solve differential equations mentally, without the need fro pencil and paper! He solved that Rubic's cube in two hours, the same time Einstein took, except that Einstein was in his thirties when he did it, while Kim was nine years old! His I.Q was deemed unmeasurable, but estimated to be 250+ as a child, which would be equivalent to 200+ in adult age - adult I.Q is lowe than childhood I.Q, because the former reflects accelerated development that some children have, and then the other kids catch up. One smart ####!
To put in perspective what havinf an I.Q of 200+ as an adult means, consider this:
- That average I.Q is between 90 and 109.
- College graduates average 115.
- Medical doctors and engineers average 125.
- PhD mathematicians from elite universities average 145.
- Physics Nobelists average 155.
- Fields Medal winners average 170.
Imagine, if you will, a brilliant Harvard professor of mathematics, who has an I.Q of 150. Now, imagien the difference in intelligence between him and a mnaual laborer. Well, Kim Ung-Yong would be as much smarter than the Harvard mathematics professor as the professor is from a cattle rancher.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
SMM, it is true that the average NE Asian walking around has a slightly higher IQ than the average Caucasian, as shown in books like IQ and The Wealth of Nations by Lynn, but I suspect there are fewer NE Asians of genius intelligence. I believe this for 2 reasons:
1:Most revolutionary inventions in modern time were created by caucasian men:
Airplane, combustion engine, submarine, automobile, computer, etc...
2.Countries like Japan are relatively isolated genetically compared to Europe. Caucasians, as a whole, are far more genetically diverse, and so a broader spectrum of intelligence will be represented.
If what I'm saying is true, it would explain the more efficient and less criminally inclined society in Japan, however lacking in very many modern inventors of note, relative to Europe. I used to like saying, "a smart man took an old idea and understood it, a very smart man took and old idea and improved it, a genius created a new idea."
this guy is obviously good at math and has a good vocabulary so in some ways he's very intelligent and probably a genius. But there is a difference between being intelligent with numbers and having the ability to make wise desisions. If this guy were in charge of the world he would probably be another Hitler. He may be a genius but he hasnt figured out how to use his intelligence. His ideas are nothing new and wont be remembered in time. This guy is no Einstien or Newton for sure.
You used to be a gimmick account.
Why are you acting like a normal person all the sudden? >:(
You used to be a gimmick account.
Why are you acting like a normal person all the sudden? >:(
Gimmicks get boring after a while. Also, my normal account was deleted. ;)
and if by chance something big were to come from him, what would you say then?Yes, yes it should. That is what interested, intelligent people do: they investigate, debate and come to their own conclusions. Those, like yourself, who seem to have a fawning, closed-minded, adorative view of things/this guy are the ones who are not intelligent and should send up red flags for the rest of us. The ability to question with a rational discourse, rather than some blind observance, is what I like about Getbig. Ther are some smart people here, and it is interesting to see their POV on different topics. Even TA's, who I see has rejoined the fray. :)
What do you think people said about the ones you mentioned before they came up with something worth talking about?
His intelligence shouldn't be up for debate,,, especially by people posting on Get Big, haha.... If it were among the intelligence community, which he is always spoken about, then yes, but please, on get big....by true adonis who STILL never answered my questions about him starting problems with derrick anthony and backing out?
I'm always afraid I'll find out who teh Debussey really is and it'll be someone like Derrick Anthony.
...Frightening thought running through my head... :(
The most common IQ-scaling uses a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This would render a number such as 200 almost meaningless. An IQ of 172 would be expected in about one in a million people.
The best IQ-test in use today is WAIS-III, and it doesn't even give you figures higher than 155.
Take a look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
"Thus the modern version of the IQ is a mathematical transformation of a raw score (based on the rank of that score in a normalization sample; see quantile, percentile, percentile rank), which is the primary result of an IQ test. To differentiate the two scores, modern scores are sometimes referred to as "deviance IQ", while the age-specific scores are referred to as "ratio IQ". While the two methodologies yield similar results near the middle of the bell curve, the older ratio IQs yielded far higher scores for the intellectually gifted—Marilyn vos Savant appeared in the Guinness book of world records for obtaining a ratio IQ of 228. Such stratospheric numbers are not possible on the deviation IQ because a perfectly Gaussian curve defines the highest possible IQ within the United States (population 300 million) as between five and six standard deviations above the U.S. mean defined as 100. With a standard deviation of 15 this would produce a result of IQ175 to IQ180. .."
CD
IQ like bodybuilding genetics is an interesting topic, but,in the end is little more than an academic curiosity. Now since little can be done to alter your genetics for IQ or bodybuilding, why worry about it? What we all can do is bust our azz in the gym and in school to be our best. Potential is nice, but actually doing something is what it is all about.The good thing about IQ is there is no "magic pill" for becoming smart overnight...haha
This was the dumbest statement he made, "centipedes have small brains, they aren't smart; cats have larger heads; they are slightly smarter; monkeys have even larger heads; they are smarter still...there is a correlation between head size and intelligence."
I guess he knows nothing of the Natural World or Paleontology. Langan Dismissed. haha
But if you really want to dismiss his ramblings, look no further than his CTMU.
If I have time I will point out the gross errors in his summations.
The problem with Langan's claim of possesing an I.Q of 195 is that the statistical probability of scoring that high is one in a billion...for White Males! You see, White Males have the highest average I.Q of all groups except East Asians and Askenazi Jews. The actual statistical probability of scoring 195 in adult age, in the Stanford-Binet scale, which has a standard-deviation of 16, is one in 5 billion.
The reason for this is that the average I.Q of humanity is not 100, which is the average for White Males, but 87. In other words, it is impossible for him to have an I.Q of 195, because there are less than half a billion White Males in the World. The most intelligent person in the World is probably an Asian. The reason is that there are roughly one billion Asian Males in the World, and since their average I.Q is 105, then the smartest East Asian male must have an I.Q of 202, in a scale with a standard-deviation of 16.
This individual is Kim Ung-Yong, frm South Korea. He could walk at six months old, and could read before his second birthday. At the age of four, he could read and write in six different languages, and had mastered algebra. At the age of six, he could write in nine different languages, and could solve differential equations mentally, without the need fro pencil and paper! He solved that Rubic's cube in two hours, the same time Einstein took, except that Einstein was in his thirties when he did it, while Kim was nine years old! His I.Q was deemed unmeasurable, but estimated to be 250+ as a child, which would be equivalent to 200+ in adult age - adult I.Q is lowe than childhood I.Q, because the former reflects accelerated development that some children have, and then the other kids catch up. One smart ####!
To put in perspective what havinf an I.Q of 200+ as an adult means, consider this:
- That average I.Q is between 90 and 109.
- College graduates average 115.
- Medical doctors and engineers average 125.
- PhD mathematicians from elite universities average 145.
- Physics Nobelists average 155.
- Fields Medal winners average 170.
Imagine, if you will, a brilliant Harvard professor of mathematics, who has an I.Q of 150. Now, imagien the difference in intelligence between him and a mnaual laborer. Well, Kim Ung-Yong would be as much smarter than the Harvard mathematics professor as the professor is from a cattle rancher.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Wrong. Regression analyses shows that I.Q correlates almost perfectly with everything that we associte with being intelligent, from doing well in school and at the workplace, to being good at chess and understanding the math involved in building complex structures; in other words, I.Q and intelligence are synonymous. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Hmm, not to be a dick, but if you are going to use big words like "existencial", you might want to spell them correctly...
You seem to be very interested in I.Q. Have you ever had your I.Q. measured as an adult?
By the way, the fellow didn't say intelligence wasn't real, he said I.Q. tests were constructs and that intelligence isn't. You therefore agreed with him...
hahah
thats an ownage. could all the stupid people stop commenting, you dont have a fucking sweet clue about his theory.
and beleiving in god is not a downfall nor hinderance. alot of great thinkers have beleived in god, wether pantheism, deism,theism.
nobody has a sweet clue about the numerous mysteries of the universe, so claiming someone is ignorant for using the god hypothesis is ignorant.
Although that's taking it really far, IQ is a construct because it's captured in rules and instruments dictated by a certain paradigm, so that is almost the definition of a construct.
Now this thread is becoming LUDICROUS....
A white male has an IQ not much higher than a DOG.... As one looks into history it is evident based upon accomplishments that it is not the minority CAUCASIAN but the MAJORITY people of color who have the dominant intelligence. Just exploring the ancient world and the accomplishments of the people shows who is GIFTED AND WHO IS NOT. The bulk of world history and the major accomplishments and therefore HIGHER THINKING AND IQ occurs in AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST. Be it the wonders of the world, ancient cities, mathematical knowledge, scientific knowledge, astronomy knowledge etc runs circles around what any white person could imagine....even today. To still see white male scientist stumbling around Egypt, Mexico, Peru etc wondering how the pyramids and other structures were built makes white so called intelligence a laughable matter. Add in Mayan, Incan, Aztec, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, etc engineering feats and creations and whites become the laughing stock of the world. White intelligence is PRIDE...and they having created nothing but WAR, VIOLENCE, DISEASE and CHAOS the white male/people has nothing to show for his/their existence except aforementioned and include sexual deviance(especially whites called Greeks and Romans). So to make themselves appear intelligent they adopt the culture, history, accomplishments, ideas etc of other people....perfect example is the preponderance of African history being portrayed by white people...ever watch the TEN COMMANDMENTS...Africans and Israelites are DARK SKINNED...NOT WHITE. The recent 300 movie correctly showed the skin color of the Persians, but LIED about all of the rest of the history to make the white Greeks appear dominant and intelligent. The great African leader HANNIBAL (not the movie) who conquered Rome was recently portrayed as WHITE on a History Channel special...how crazy is that!!!!. Here is a particular funny thing...TARZAN...the supposed African is portrayed in movies and cartoons as WHITE even though he is supposed to be AFRICAN. The examples of stealing the history, culture, intelligence and ideas of other people is a notorious attribute of white people...even the mentioned Einstein, Pythagoras, DaVinci, Isaac Newton, etc etc are ALL LIARS and THIEVES who stole the ideas and accomplishments of others...PLAGURIST...SCU MBAGS AT BEST they all are. The knowledge of Algebra, Geomentry, Calculus etc was know in the ANCIENT WORLD....Understanding of the PERIODIC CHART/ELEMENTS was far better know in the ancient world than even today..how else could the refinement of Gold, Copper, Brass, Bronze, Silver and even Cast Iron be to levels of which no refinery can match today. When was the last time you saw a quarry move 4 MILLION pound stones 200 Miles and erect buildings with them? The knowledge of physics, geology, mathematics, engineering, construction etc had to be so phenomenal that it would be off the chart. This knowledge held in those days seemed to have been quite common given the multitude and magnitude of engineering marvels in the world...non of which exists in the white world. Even stretching into SouthEast Asian, India, The Middle East, Africa and most of Central and South America these great inventions, engineering feats and HIGH INTELLIGENCE exist. In the white world knowledge is what they have stolen form these people and culture and tried to adapt as their own. Another poster made the STUPID mistake of claiming everything from the combustion engine, airplane, car, etc are white creations....better let your PRIDE go and do some research...these inventions were/are NOT WHITE INVENTIONS....but just like Einstein a white thief stole the idea and presented it as their own. Ever read the history of Thomas Edison or the court battle between him and Lewis Lattimer (the Black man that invented the light bulb)...Edison was ordered to court and when asked to explain how the light bulb worked he said he couldn't, but needed Mr lattimer to explain it. Now if the white bastard had invented the light bulb, then why would he need Mr Lattimer to explain how it worked? WHITE FRAUD REVEALED!!!!! This is just one of MANY cases of white FRAUD...
And as for white intelligence today....how come america ranks so low against other nations when it comes to intelligence..I believe out of a scale of 50 top nations america is at 49. How come doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientist, inventors and the intelectually gifted are from every nation of people EXCEPT caucasians? This Langan guy is just like america A PHONEY LYING SELF CENTERED BULLSHITTER, looking for attention and sadly when question/exposed he is just like the WIZARD in OZ...a little lonely old man with nothing but a smoke and mirrors game trying to make himself look great....HOW SAD.
Hilarious. Hey, you fucking moron, it was me who posted the CTMU in the religious board. Remember? So I don't have clue? Right, that's probably why I knew about it and you didn't.whoa!!! calm down sucky, i knew you were doison, its obvious from your posting style and intelligence.
Who said that the genes for intelligence cannot work peliotropically with the genes fo mysticism? ;)
Except that you choice of God is limiting and ultimately self-defeating. Why not gods? Or fairies? Or what about the latest theory that the Universe is a hologram created by branes from quantum substrata, and that there are infinite universes that come from slightly modifying the rules or axioms of these brains? Did God create all these universes? O perhaps only the univese that we inhabit? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
The rubiks cube was invented in 1974, while Einstein was 30 years old in 1909 and died in 1955.
Now this thread is becoming LUDICROUS....
A white male has an IQ not much higher than a DOG.... As one looks into history it is evident based upon accomplishments that it is not the minority CAUCASIAN but the MAJORITY people of color who have the dominant intelligence. Just exploring the ancient world and the accomplishments of the people shows who is GIFTED AND WHO IS NOT. The bulk of world history and the major accomplishments and therefore HIGHER THINKING AND IQ occurs in AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST. Be it the wonders of the world, ancient cities, mathematical knowledge, scientific knowledge, astronomy knowledge etc runs circles around what any white person could imagine....even today. To still see white male scientist stumbling around Egypt, Mexico, Peru etc wondering how the pyramids and other structures were built makes white so called intelligence a laughable matter. Add in Mayan, Incan, Aztec, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, etc engineering feats and creations and whites become the laughing stock of the world. White intelligence is PRIDE...and they having created nothing but WAR, VIOLENCE, DISEASE and CHAOS the white male/people has nothing to show for his/their existence except aforementioned and include sexual deviance(especially whites called Greeks and Romans). So to make themselves appear intelligent they adopt the culture, history, accomplishments, ideas etc of other people....perfect example is the preponderance of African history being portrayed by white people...ever watch the TEN COMMANDMENTS...Africans and Israelites are DARK SKINNED...NOT WHITE. The recent 300 movie correctly showed the skin color of the Persians, but LIED about all of the rest of the history to make the white Greeks appear dominant and intelligent. The great African leader HANNIBAL (not the movie) who conquered Rome was recently portrayed as WHITE on a History Channel special...how crazy is that!!!!. Here is a particular funny thing...TARZAN...the supposed African is portrayed in movies and cartoons as WHITE even though he is supposed to be AFRICAN. The examples of stealing the history, culture, intelligence and ideas of other people is a notorious attribute of white people...even the mentioned Einstein, Pythagoras, DaVinci, Isaac Newton, etc etc are ALL LIARS and THIEVES who stole the ideas and accomplishments of others...PLAGURIST...SCU MBAGS AT BEST they all are. The knowledge of Algebra, Geomentry, Calculus etc was know in the ANCIENT WORLD....Understanding of the PERIODIC CHART/ELEMENTS was far better know in the ancient world than even today..how else could the refinement of Gold, Copper, Brass, Bronze, Silver and even Cast Iron be to levels of which no refinery can match today. When was the last time you saw a quarry move 4 MILLION pound stones 200 Miles and erect buildings with them? The knowledge of physics, geology, mathematics, engineering, construction etc had to be so phenomenal that it would be off the chart. This knowledge held in those days seemed to have been quite common given the multitude and magnitude of engineering marvels in the world...non of which exists in the white world. Even stretching into SouthEast Asian, India, The Middle East, Africa and most of Central and South America these great inventions, engineering feats and HIGH INTELLIGENCE exist. In the white world knowledge is what they have stolen form these people and culture and tried to adapt as their own. Another poster made the STUPID mistake of claiming everything from the combustion engine, airplane, car, etc are white creations....better let your PRIDE go and do some research...these inventions were/are NOT WHITE INVENTIONS....but just like Einstein a white thief stole the idea and presented it as their own. Ever read the history of Thomas Edison or the court battle between him and Lewis Lattimer (the Black man that invented the light bulb)...Edison was ordered to court and when asked to explain how the light bulb worked he said he couldn't, but needed Mr lattimer to explain it. Now if the white bastard had invented the light bulb, then why would he need Mr Lattimer to explain how it worked? WHITE FRAUD REVEALED!!!!! This is just one of MANY cases of white FRAUD...
And as for white intelligence today....how come america ranks so low against other nations when it comes to intelligence..I believe out of a scale of 50 top nations america is at 49. How come doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientist, inventors and the intelectually gifted are from every nation of people EXCEPT caucasians? This Langan guy is just like america A PHONEY LYING SELF CENTERED BULLSHITTER, looking for attention and sadly when question/exposed he is just like the WIZARD in OZ...a little lonely old man with nothing but a smoke and mirrors game trying to make himself look great....HOW SAD.
I doubt many here have the ability to criticize Langan because he is not at all easy to comprehend. Good luck.
IQ can be improved through training. Ditto scores on exams. Tutoring can help improve scores.
Interestingly, I would say that almost all patents for new ideas re gym equipment have originated in America and Europe and countries derived from those places. I know of no gym equipment patents from the Middle East, Asia, South America, or Africa. This might mean that those places aren't interested in physiques and associated training.
I wonder what sort of test Langan would construct to test super high intelligence? There was a psychologist in England who did a factor analysis on intelligence and came up with at least 120 different kinds of intelligence. Clearly some of those kinds of intelligence have never been tested for. If you take a look at the IQ tests for the superintelligent you will see that you cannot easily guess the answers because they don't have multiple choice questions. You have to fill in the answer yourself. There is no way at all that dunces could score high on those difficult tests. I would bet they would be unable to get even one answer correct.
Those special tests do not have a time limit. When Langan was supposed to be tested under controlled conditions how long did he take to complete those tests? Surely no one would supervise someone for a month or even a week! Now if someone can complete one of those extremely difficult tests in a matter of hours then he has a brain that we can hardly comprehend. If those individuals post their thoughts it may be just as difficult to comprehend what they are saying. If that is so we won't be able to know if what they are saying makes sense or not. That seems to be what happens when you try to read Langan's work.
Now this thread is becoming LUDICROUS....
A white male has an IQ not much higher than a DOG.... As one looks into history it is evident based upon accomplishments that it is not the minority CAUCASIAN but the MAJORITY people of color who have the dominant intelligence. Just exploring the ancient world and the accomplishments of the people shows who is GIFTED AND WHO IS NOT. The bulk of world history and the major accomplishments and therefore HIGHER THINKING AND IQ occurs in AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST. Be it the wonders of the world, ancient cities, mathematical knowledge, scientific knowledge, astronomy knowledge etc runs circles around what any white person could imagine....even today. To still see white male scientist stumbling around Egypt, Mexico, Peru etc wondering how the pyramids and other structures were built makes white so called intelligence a laughable matter. Add in Mayan, Incan, Aztec, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, etc engineering feats and creations and whites become the laughing stock of the world. White intelligence is PRIDE...and they having created nothing but WAR, VIOLENCE, DISEASE and CHAOS the white male/people has nothing to show for his/their existence except aforementioned and include sexual deviance(especially whites called Greeks and Romans). So to make themselves appear intelligent they adopt the culture, history, accomplishments, ideas etc of other people....perfect example is the preponderance of African history being portrayed by white people...ever watch the TEN COMMANDMENTS...Africans and Israelites are DARK SKINNED...NOT WHITE. The recent 300 movie correctly showed the skin color of the Persians, but LIED about all of the rest of the history to make the white Greeks appear dominant and intelligent. The great African leader HANNIBAL (not the movie) who conquered Rome was recently portrayed as WHITE on a History Channel special...how crazy is that!!!!. Here is a particular funny thing...TARZAN...the supposed African is portrayed in movies and cartoons as WHITE even though he is supposed to be AFRICAN. The examples of stealing the history, culture, intelligence and ideas of other people is a notorious attribute of white people...even the mentioned Einstein, Pythagoras, DaVinci, Isaac Newton, etc etc are ALL LIARS and THIEVES who stole the ideas and accomplishments of others...PLAGURIST...SCU MBAGS AT BEST they all are. The knowledge of Algebra, Geomentry, Calculus etc was know in the ANCIENT WORLD....Understanding of the PERIODIC CHART/ELEMENTS was far better know in the ancient world than even today..how else could the refinement of Gold, Copper, Brass, Bronze, Silver and even Cast Iron be to levels of which no refinery can match today. When was the last time you saw a quarry move 4 MILLION pound stones 200 Miles and erect buildings with them? The knowledge of physics, geology, mathematics, engineering, construction etc had to be so phenomenal that it would be off the chart. This knowledge held in those days seemed to have been quite common given the multitude and magnitude of engineering marvels in the world...non of which exists in the white world. Even stretching into SouthEast Asian, India, The Middle East, Africa and most of Central and South America these great inventions, engineering feats and HIGH INTELLIGENCE exist. In the white world knowledge is what they have stolen form these people and culture and tried to adapt as their own. Another poster made the STUPID mistake of claiming everything from the combustion engine, airplane, car, etc are white creations....better let your PRIDE go and do some research...these inventions were/are NOT WHITE INVENTIONS....but just like Einstein a white thief stole the idea and presented it as their own. Ever read the history of Thomas Edison or the court battle between him and Lewis Lattimer (the Black man that invented the light bulb)...Edison was ordered to court and when asked to explain how the light bulb worked he said he couldn't, but needed Mr lattimer to explain it. Now if the white bastard had invented the light bulb, then why would he need Mr Lattimer to explain how it worked? WHITE FRAUD REVEALED!!!!! This is just one of MANY cases of white FRAUD...
And as for white intelligence today....how come america ranks so low against other nations when it comes to intelligence..I believe out of a scale of 50 top nations america is at 49. How come doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientist, inventors and the intelectually gifted are from every nation of people EXCEPT caucasians? This Langan guy is just like america A PHONEY LYING SELF CENTERED BULLSHITTER, looking for attention and sadly when question/exposed he is just like the WIZARD in OZ...a little lonely old man with nothing but a smoke and mirrors game trying to make himself look great....HOW SAD.
I wonder what sort of test Langan would construct to test super high intelligence? There was a psychologist in England who did a factor analysis on intelligence and came up with at least 120 different kinds of intelligence. Clearly some of those kinds of intelligence have never been tested for.
My brother scored 122 on a first time IQ test and he's a fucking trucker. ;D
Although I do agree that IQ is the best possible indicator of a person's intelligence, it certainly doesn't mean a high IQ person will always achive higher than someone with a lower IQ. Of course I'm talking about less than 1 standard deviation in a normal distribution. Maybe a 5 IQ point diferential doesn't mean much, but if you're talking about differences over 10 points or more then it certainly means the person with the higher IQ is smarter.
A lot of people do not even know what IQ really is. Most of the general populus thinks IQ is a measure of general knowledge, which is not true.
Debussey, one thing is clear, YOU are not playing a character role here on Getbig. That is a real worry.
And so is intelligence. ;) Who said that Human intelligence does not work with specific rules? Are you aware that synapses fire accoring to rules dictated by biology and neuro-chemistry? The rules that the brain use to solve I.Q test problems are the same that it uses to solve problems like solving an equation, understanding a concept, doing well in your job and academically. If I.Q is a construct, then intelligence also is, because they are the same.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I doubt many here have the ability to criticize Langan because he is not at all easy to comprehend. Good luck.Shhh, Vince. You're shaking the pillars of heaven. As academia, and its moat of tenure, depends on obfuscatory language and jargon as much to inform as to deter outsiders, asking such an institution for plain language would be to truly bell the cat.
If those individuals post their thoughts it may be just as difficult to comprehend what they are saying. If that is so we won't be able to know if what they are saying makes sense or not. That seems to be what happens when you try to read Langan's work.
Shhh, Vince. You're shaking the pillars of heaven. As academia, and its moat of tenure, depends on obfuscatory language and jargon as much to inform as to deter outsiders, asking such an institution for plain language would be to truly bell the cat.
/i'll have a round what debussey is having, please
ALCXOHOOLL
YUESSSSSSSSSSS
If being the smartest man in the world doesn't mean you can't have a huge ego, then it also doesn't mean you can't be co-opted by special interest for the sake of gaining power, or stroking one's own ego. The CTMU may turn out to be something purposely incomprehensible. How dare you question the smartest man in the world! ;D
"Put me in charge."
its not incomprehensible, it is just complex, and he is decently read.
nothing amazing in his theory, it needs a little more meat but i think he can/is expanding on it.
it is similar to the idea of a parcipatory universe and unfolding enfolding at a deeper level.
What's with the blue text? Shit hurts my eyes!
Bertrand Russell said there is no need for a creator or first cause,
because, "it is the limitation of our imaginations leading us to believe a beginning is even necessary."
I'm paraphrasing.
There is no need for a creator because there never was a beginning.
The universe expands with the big bang, and then contracts into a singularity.
It is a neverending cycle of expansion and reversion.
(conservation of mass)
Now this thread is becoming LUDICROUS....
A white male has an IQ not much higher than a DOG....
As one looks into history it is evident based upon accomplishments that it is not the minority CAUCASIAN but the MAJORITY people of color who have the dominant intelligence.
Just exploring the ancient world and the accomplishments of the people shows who is GIFTED AND WHO IS NOT. The bulk of world history and the major accomplishments and therefore HIGHER THINKING AND IQ occurs in AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST.
Be it the wonders of the world, ancient cities, mathematical knowledge, scientific knowledge, astronomy knowledge etc runs circles around what any white person could imagine....even today.
To still see white male scientist stumbling around Egypt, Mexico, Peru etc wondering how the pyramids and other structures were built makes white so called intelligence a laughable matter.
Add in Mayan, Incan, Aztec, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, etc engineering feats and creations and whites become the laughing stock of the world.
White intelligence is PRIDE...and they having created nothing but WAR, VIOLENCE, DISEASE and CHAOS
he white male/people has nothing to show for his/their existence except aforementioned and include sexual deviance(especially whites called Greeks and Romans).
So to make themselves appear intelligent they adopt the culture, history, accomplishments, ideas etc of other people....
perfect example is the preponderance of African history being portrayed by white people...ever watch the TEN COMMANDMENTS...Africans and Israelites are DARK SKINNED...NOT WHITE.
The recent 300 movie correctly showed the skin color of the Persians, but LIED about all of the rest of the history to make the white Greeks appear dominant and intelligent.
The great African leader HANNIBAL (not the movie) who conquered Rome was recently portrayed as WHITE on a History Channel special...how crazy is that!!!!.
Here is a particular funny thing...TARZAN...the supposed African is portrayed in movies and cartoons as WHITE even though he is supposed to be AFRICAN.
The examples of stealing the history, culture, intelligence and ideas of other people is a notorious attribute of white people...even the mentioned Einstein, Pythagoras, DaVinci, Isaac Newton, etc etc are ALL LIARS and THIEVES who stole the ideas and accomplishments of others...PLAGURIST...SCU MBAGS AT BEST they all are.
The knowledge of Algebra, Geomentry, Calculus etc was know in the ANCIENT WORLD....
Understanding of the PERIODIC CHART/ELEMENTS was far better know in the ancient world than even today..how else could the refinement of Gold, Copper, Brass, Bronze, Silver and even Cast Iron be to levels of which no refinery can match today.
When was the last time you saw a quarry move 4 MILLION pound stones 200 Miles and erect buildings with them? The knowledge of physics, geology, mathematics, engineering, construction etc had to be so phenomenal that it would be off the chart.
his knowledge held in those days seemed to have been quite common given the multitude and magnitude of engineering marvels in the world...non of which exists in the white world. Even stretching into SouthEast Asian, India, The Middle East, Africa and most of Central and South America these great inventions, engineering feats and HIGH INTELLIGENCE exist.
Another poster made the STUPID mistake of claiming everything from the combustion engine, airplane, car, etc are white creations....better let your PRIDE go and do some research...these inventions were/are NOT WHITE INVENTIONS....
but just like Einstein a white thief stole the idea and presented it as their own. Ever read the history of Thomas Edison or the court battle between him and Lewis Lattimer (the Black man that invented the light bulb)...Edison was ordered to court and when asked to explain how the light bulb worked he said he couldn't, but needed Mr lattimer to explain it. Now if the white bastard had invented the light bulb, then why would he need Mr Lattimer to explain how it worked? WHITE FRAUD REVEALED!!!!! This is just one of MANY cases of white FRAUD...
And as for white intelligence today....how come america ranks so low against other nations when it comes to intelligence..
I believe out of a scale of 50 top nations america is at 49. How come doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientist, inventors and the intelectually gifted are from every nation of people EXCEPT caucasians?
This Langan guy is just like america A PHONEY LYING SELF CENTERED BULLSHITTER, looking for attention and sadly when question/exposed he is just like the WIZARD in OZ...a little lonely old man with nothing but a smoke and mirrors game trying to make himself look great....HOW SAD.
And so is intelligence. ;) Who said that Human intelligence does not work with specific rules? Are you aware that synapses fire accoring to rules dictated by biology and neuro-chemistry? The rules that the brain use to solve I.Q test problems are the same that it uses to solve problems like solving an equation, understanding a concept, doing well in your job and academically. If I.Q is a construct, then intelligence also is, because they are the same.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Surprised that someone of your intelligence or apparent reading would make such a claim, SUCKMYMUSCLE. To say that I.Q. is the same thing as intelligence- that is, to say that I.Q. is identifiable with intelligence, to say that I.Q. is intelligence in terms of the is of identity and not of constitution- is an operationalist claim. Are you aware of the problems with operationalism? There are significant causual and identity problems with such a thesis- ie, the thesis that a mental characteristic, mental state, mental event or mental property is identifiable with the means used to measure it.
If you are prepared to admit that you have made an operationalist claim and bite the bullet, then so be it- we can argue about that. If, on the other, you concede that this is a mistaken course to take, then it's only a short step to being in a position to making one of the following claims-
- Intelligence is biophysical whilst I.Q. is socially constructed.
- Intelligence is socially constructed as I.Q. indeed is.
- Intelligence is biophysical, the concept, "'intelligence,'" is socially constructed and as is I.Q.
I'd be interested to read your reply, if only because I find it curious that you would commit to something which seems so obviously operationlist.
He claimed that I.Q is a construct, and that is a typical post-modern argument that I loath. So, to demonstrate him wrong, I said that, whether a construct or not, I.Q measures the trait that we often call intelligence, such as the ability to comprehend, deduce, learn and abstract.
Ergo, since the social contruct of I.Q correlates with what we define as intelligence, and since a person with an atrophied or damaged brain demonstrates less intelligence than someomne with an intact brain, it is assumed that intelligence and I.Q are the result of the functioning brain. And since this functioning is biological, then biology is the basis of intelligence. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Actually, the average I.Q of White Males is, by definition, 100. The average I.Q of Blacks is 85 in the U.S and 70 in Africa, which is on the borderline of mental dretardation. So not only do White Men have higher I.Qs than dogs, they aslo have higher I.Qs than Blacks as well. ;)
Absurd conjecture. ::) The average I.Q of Indo-European Caucasians is higher than that of all groups except East Asians. Furthermore, this is irrelvant, since the majority of people of all races are not intelligent enough to create any major scientific advancement or grand theories in areas such as physics, mathematics and philosophy. However, due to their much higher average intelligence, Whites produce 30 times more people with I.Qs above 130, which is required for optimum performance in high paying jobs like being a high business executive, medical doctor, engineer or attorney. Furthermore, Caucasians produce 1000 times more people with I.Qs in excess of 160, which is required for creating grand theories in areas like physics, mathematics and philosoph. This explains why practically all Human civilization was created by Caucasians and East Asians.
The civilizations of Africa and the Middle East were created, respectively, by Hamites and Semites. Anthropology regards both as branches of Caucasians.
Practically all Fields Medal winners and physics Nobelists are White Males. The fact that many are Jewish is irrelvant, because Jews are a mixture of Indo-Europeans and Semites, and both groups are Caucasians. Furthermore, with the exception of Han China, all the great civilizations of the World were created by Caucasians.;)
The Mayan pyramids are extremely simple engineering projects. The Roman Coliseum represents a far more sophisticated achievement in engineering than any of the Meso-American buildings. Not only that, the Romans also build insulae that were 10 story high, and the World's first system of roads. The Mayans were primitive in comparison.
As for the Egyptians,they were Caucasians of Hamitic origin. They entered Egypt coming from Babylon around 3 500 B.C. The tombs of Egyptians pharaohs that were discovered, like that of Ramses and Amnhotep IV, show that they had wavy hair, olive skin and straight noses. All Caucasian features. Cleopatra was a descendant of Ptolomey, a Geek who was one of Alexander the Great's generals. The mummifieed remains of aristocratic Egyptians show the Hamitic type as dominant, followed by Semites.
The achievements of the Mayans and Aztec are pathetic in comparison to that of Caucasians. As for Babylon, they were and intermixture of Semites with Indo-Eauropean tribes that emmigrated down from the Caucasus era during the Neolithic era(8 000 B.C), and both groups were Caucasians.
The homicide rate for Caucasians is much lower than that of Blacks: at 6% of the total population, Black Males commit 50% of all violent crimes, including rape, assualt, homicide and latrocide.
As for war, Black Africa is by far the continent that has the most of it. Black Africa is notorious for having dictators that start war en absurdum. Blacks engage in never-ending tribal warfare. They are far more violent than Whites. As for disease, you got that wrong: practically all diseases that were cured was done by White Males. Conversely, Black Africa bestowed on Whites the curses of HIV, Ebola, rhantavirus and several other pathogens ;). Caucasian countries engage in far less warfare than Blacks, but the wars tend to be far more destructive due to the White Man's vastly superior technological and organizational level.
So what's your point? We are talking about scientific and cultural achievements here, and sexuality has nothing to do with it. The ancient Greeks and Romans were not Christians or Jews, so they had no problems with homosexuality. However, they did contribute to civilization infinitely more than Blacks. Besides, Blacks engage in lots of homosexuality, too. Ever heard of the Keleinjin tribe? Do you know how an adolescent becomes a man? By drinking the sperm of an adult man. So much for the homosexuality of the ancient Greeks and Romans! ;)
The bulk of what the White Males created came from their own minds. All the aforementioned civilizations were Caucasian. When they did take an invention from another people, like the gunpowder, they usually are more creative about how to use it.
Ancient hebrews had darker skin than modern European Caucasians, but they were Semitic, and Semites are Caucasian. I personally don't care about this, since I don't have a religion.
The Greeks were dominant and intelligent; their achievements in mathematics, lingustics and political science are unparalled. They invented geometry and trigonometry, and created the most beautiful works of art ever, such as the Parthenon . What the hell are you talking about? ::) As for Blacks in the Persian Empire, they were slaves or subjects of the state. The Persians believed in integration, and didn't descriminate. All the elite, however, were
Caucasians of Semitic, Hamitic and Indo-European stock.
Hannibal was African because the city-state he was born in, Carthage, was located in Africa. The geographical region where he was born has nothing to do with his etchicity. Hannibal was a Semite, a Caucasian, from ancient Phoenician origin. So there's nothing wrong with showing him as White, because that's what he was. ;).
Tarzan was the son of a White Man and just born in Africa! Furthermore, the foremost reason why a White Man played Tarzan is because there weren't many Black actors available, since most Black Men prefered to chase whores in the ghetto and do drugs rather than get jobs.
All their achiements are without precedence, so they couldn't possibly have stolen them from anyone. Provide sources for your assertions that the aforementioned men stole this from people of color.
The knowledge of geometry did exist in the Ancient World, and it was created by Pithagoras, a Greek male of Indo-European origin. The bust of Pithagoras, done during his lifetime, still exists in the Louvre, and it shows the features of a Caucasian male.
Algebra was developed by Arabians, who are Semitic, and, thus, Caucasians. They also created our numerical system.
As for calculus, it was developed simultaneously by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz in the Sixteenth Century. One was an Englishman, and the other, a German. Both were Caucasians. Differential calculus was developed latter, also by White European Males. Calculus could not possibly have been developed in the Ancient World, because if it had, it would have allowed a level of technology that the Ancients lacked. Since they lacked it, then there was no calculus in the Ancient World.
First of all, this is false. The steels of the Ancient World, like wootz and tamahagane, were very simple in complexity when compared with modern steels. Furthermore, they were all developed by Caucasians or East Asians. No Blacks. Secondly, the only elements that the ancients knew about were gold(Au), Iron(Fe), copper(Cu) and bronze and Silver. As for Brass, it is an alloy and not an element. ::)Today, there are close to 120 elements in the Periodic Table.
The Periodic Table was created by Mendeleyev, a Russian White Male. All the elements of the perioric table were discovered by White Males. Not only that, White Males have manufactured several new elements, like Plutonium, Rhodium, Ununpentium, etc, somthing that dwarfs even the discovery of elements. ;)
Not really. The knowledge of engineering requirted to build a pyramid is primary. Not only that, the Egyptians were Caucasians, so you have no argument. The White Male is able to build scyscrappers that are as tall as the pyramids, but with far more sophisticated engineering. As for how they build it, the explanation is simple: when you have millions of slaves that you can work to death and centuries to build something, then moving and pilling up big rocks is not that hard. The only roles that the Blacks played in Egyptian civilization were as slaves.
The engineering is actually very simple in all these buildings. Modern building are much, much harder to build. As for the Middle East, they were Semites, Hamites and Indo-Europeans. Building a scyscraper is much, much harder than building a pyramid, and involves far more sophisticated engineering.
Yes, they were. If the Blacks had developed all these things independently as you say, then they wouldn't have been defeated and enslaved by the Caucasians so easily. The Blacks of Africa were not even in the Neolithic Era when the European cames, but still in the Paleolithic one. In other words, they were still in the Stone Age. They hunted with stone spears.
Nothing is revealed, except that maybe, just maybe, Edison didn't invent the light bulb. It is simply conjecture and expeculation. And even if it is true, you can still cannot explain the other hundreds of inventions that Edison came up with and claim it for Blacks. It does not, in any way, diminish his merit. Considering that Edison demonstrated his genius several times, it is safe to say that he was the one who invented the light bulb and not Lattimer, since the latter's track record is pathetic in comparison. Geniuses show consistent levels of genius; Edison showed it, Lattimer ddin't. ;)
This is not true. The average I.Q of the U.S is 98, which puts it among the highest average I.Qs in the World. The average I.Q of European nations is above 100, and the only reason why the U.S is lower is because of the large number of Blacks and Latinos that drag the average down.
Wrong, again. The majority of foreigners doing research in the U.S are European, followed by East Asians. As for the Indians, they are Caucasians of Neolithic stock.
As for lawyers, scientists, inventors and general intellectual elite, the overwhelming majority are White, followed by East Asians.
trust me: Langan would make you feel like a monkey if you tried to argue with him. ;D ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Wow :o
My IQ was tested well above average as a child, and I was placed in accelerated classes, but SMM must be approaching genius! He makes these post effortlessly and consistently whatever the topic may be. Bravo.
He's one of the few people here to demonstrate real wealth knowledge, directly from his head.
And so is intelligence. ;) Who said that Human intelligence does not work with specific rules? Are you aware that synapses fire accoring to rules dictated by biology and neuro-chemistry? The rules that the brain use to solve I.Q test problems are the same that it uses to solve problems like solving an equation, understanding a concept, doing well in your job and academically. If I.Q is a construct, then intelligence also is, because they are the same.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Nope. If you look back in this thread you'll see I disagreed with him on some things.
I don't agree that Indians are caucasian, as I've seen charts showing them clustering genetically, as a whole, closer to Asians. Overall the post is impressive because he put it together quickly, countering every point.
Please keep on topic. This is interesting.
It is more of a philisophical thing, in almost theories about science they agree there is no such thing as real objectivity, that means intelligence is just a handle to get a grip on this amazing phenomenon.
Race versus Social ClassOne challenge for a purely environmental theories is to explain upward and downward within-family mobility. For example, Weinrich (1977) reviewed data showing that those adolescents moving from one SES level to another showed the sexual patterns of their to be acquired class, not the class they were raised in by their parents. More recent research confirms the importance of within-family variation with some siblings more often adopting the syndrome of early sexuality, delinquency, and low educational attainment than others (Rowe, Rodgers, Meseck-Bushey, & St.John, 1989).
Within-family social mobility has been known for some time in the IQ literature. In one study Waller (1971) obtained the IQ scores of 130 fathers and their 172 adult sons, all of whom had been routinely tested during their high school year in Minnesota. The IQs ranged from below 80 to above 130 and were related to social class. Children with lower IQs than their fathers went down in social class as adults, and those with higher IQs went up (r = 0.37 between difference in father-son social class and difference in father-son IQ). Such intergenerational social mobility has subsequently been confirmed (Mascie-Taylor & Gibson, 1978).
Socieoeconomic effects often appear to confound those of race beacuse, as will be discussed in chapter 13, lower socioeconomic groups more often engage in r-strategies [more children] than do higher socieoeconomic groups. Dizygotic twinning (the r-strategy) is greater among lower than upper socioeconomic women in both European and African samples, as are differences in family size, intelligence, law abidingness, health, longetivity, and sexuality. The question then arises as to whether social class or race is more predictive of behavior.
With brain size, in the stratified random sample of 6,325 military personnel (Rushton, 1992a), the 18 cm3 (1 percent) difference in rank between officers and enlisted personnel was smaller than either the 21 cm3 (1.5 percent) difference between Caucasioids and Negroids, or the 36 cm3 (2.6 percent) difference between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. Other data (summarized in table 6.6) suggest a 4 to 6 percent Negroid-Caucasoid difference and a 1 to 2.8 percent Mongoloid-Caucasoid difference in brain size. Race may be the more important variable.
In the study just referred to on regression effects, Jensen (1974) found that black children from high socioeconomic status homes scored lower on IQ tests than white children from low socioeconomic homes. The study examined virtually all the white (N= 1,489) and black (n= 1,123) children enrolled in regular classes of the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of the Berkeley elementary school district in California. The black children's parents were high-level administrators, supervisors, college teachers, and proffesionals; the white children's parents were manual and unskilled workers. The racial differences showed up on both the verbal and noverbal parts of the nationally standardized Thorndike-Lorge Intelligence Test.
In a similar study of the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the results from 1984 showed that the median scores of black college applicants from families earning over $50,000 were lower than those of whites from families earning less than $6,000. The scores were monotonically related to income within both races (R.A. Gordon, 1987a). Race was more powerful than income in determining test scores.
Although it is well known that test scores are correlated with socioeconomic status within racial groups, this does not, in fact, explain black-white ability differences. The pattern of black-white differences is different in factorial composition from the pattern of social class differences within the black and the white groups (Jensen & Reynolds, 1982). For example, the SES differences tend to be largest on test of verbal ability rather than on test of spatial visualization. This is just the opposite of the pattern of black-white differences on verbal and spatial test.
What happened to good old correspondence? P: scientific theory. "P" is true iff P.
This guy is dumb as a bag of shit. He got his idea of population control from China. Population control is a shit idea btw.
Within a certain paradigm there's is what can be considered a 'gentleman's agreement' between the major sciences about the belief system so to say. They are using a synthetic objectivity, it would be unworkable to call everything subjective (remember, it's more of a science philosophy point of view) This al makes sense and works for that paradigm, till a new (and usually better) paradigm takes a completely different view of things with new conventions and instruments. Some well known science philosophers are Kant, Popper, Kuhn, Foucault, there's some interesting books out there.
The whole idea is not to undermine science, but to take away some of the arrogance. Taking a step back and looking what science is actually doing. A professor of mine once said: "Science is so eager to advance that they aren't taking the time to validate current research by duplicating it. If science would take a year off and just duplicate research, a lot of results would not be the same as that of the original study. Things are taken for granted far to easily" I agree with him, researchers should be more critical, especially of their own work.
Yeah, I understood your post. I was more interested in that one sentence- I.Q is synonymous with intelligence, which I think you may have written elsewhere in this thread, though not also in response to a post-modernist post.
However, I don't feel that one needs to adhere to post-modernism to assert that I.Q is a social construct. If you were to make a claim such as, 'the thing we refer to when we say "the biologically caused thing, intelligence," is actually a social construct,' that is, not referring to the concept of intelligence, but the extension of the term, then I would agree that that is a post-modernist claim and quite absurd. However, I think that one can more easily defend the position that I.Q- a method used to measure intelligence- is a social construct- without entailing some kind of post-modernism. All one would really be doing is to be a realist about the influence of social relations and social context in the divising of a scientific hypothesis and experimental procedure- which doesn't really entail post-modernism. If one were to say that I.Q is a construct, what one would really be saying is that the method used to measure intelligence is socially divised and permeated by social context- which, again, is not an ontological post-modernist claim: it is not the same as saying that reality, or some thing in the external world is socially constructed.
Further, I.Q doesn't necessarily measure intelligence- it might not even contigently measure intelligence. That is, that the statement, 'I.Q measures intelligence,' is certainly not necessarily true, and it might not even be contigently true. To say that it is contingently true is to say that intelligence causes, whether directly or indirectly, I.Q, which is not to assert correlation, but cause.
You also wrote a rather telling phrase at the beginning of your second paragraph- what we define as intelligence. This wisely distinguishes between intelligence, the thing in the brain, and the referent or extension of the term, "'intelligence,'" and the concept "intelligence-" the intension of the term. One can say that on the one hand, the former is real, whereas on the other, the latter is socially constructed, and still not be ontologically post modernist. This is the third of the claims I wrote in my first post, and is also defendable.
If you permit that I.Q is socially constructed, either totally or partially, then I.Q is not a fully accurate measure of intelligence as it is permeated with bias. There are many, many reasons why the I.Q differs so grossly across varying socio-economic groups, and I'm sure you're aware of a good deal of the offered explanations. To say that I.Q directly and accurately measures the biological thing intelligence, and that because a certain group of people have an on average lower I.Q than another group means that they have an on average lower intelligence is to postulate the empirical statement that there be some biological cause- an intelligence gene or something along those lines present in different socio-economic groups which accounts for such a discrepancy. If, on the other hand, you allow for the partial or total social construction of the measurement I.Q then you can quite easily explain the discrepancies in I.Q in terms of socio-economic causes- which seems much more intuitive.
Yeah, sorry but I don't get how that responds to my post. ???
I might have misunderstood your questions then, rephrase it please...
Yeah, I understood your post. I was more interested in that one sentence- I.Q is synonymous with intelligence, which I think you may have written elsewhere in this thread, though not also in response to a post-modernist post.
However, I don't feel that one needs to adhere to post-modernism to assert that I.Q is a social construct. If you were to make a claim such as, 'the thing we refer to when we say "the biologically caused thing, intelligence," is actually a social construct,' that is, not referring to the concept of intelligence, but the extension of the term, then I would agree that that is a post-modernist claim and quite absurd. However, I think that one can more easily defend the position that I.Q- a method used to measure intelligence- is a social construct- without entailing some kind of post-modernism. All one would really be doing is to be a realist about the influence of social relations and social context in the divising of a scientific hypothesis and experimental procedure- which doesn't really entail post-modernism. If one were to say that I.Q is a construct, what one would really be saying is that the method used to measure intelligence is socially divised and permeated by social context- which, again, is not an ontological post-modernist claim: it is not the same as saying that reality, or some thing in the external world is socially constructed.
Further, I.Q doesn't necessarily measure intelligence- it might not even contigently measure intelligence. That is, that the statement, 'I.Q measures intelligence,' is certainly not necessarily true, and it might not even be contigently true. To say that it is contingently true is to say that intelligence causes, whether directly or indirectly, I.Q, which is not to assert correlation, but cause.
You also wrote a rather telling phrase at the beginning of your second paragraph- what we define as intelligence. This wisely distinguishes between intelligence, the thing in the brain, and the referent or extension of the term, "'intelligence,'" and the concept "intelligence-" the intension of the term. One can say that on the one hand, the former is real, whereas on the other, the latter is socially constructed, and still not be ontologically post modernist. This is the third of the claims I wrote in my first post, and is also defendable.
If you permit that I.Q is socially constructed, either totally or partially, then I.Q is not a fully accurate measure of intelligence as it is permeated with bias. There are many, many reasons why the I.Q differs so grossly across varying socio-economic groups, and I'm sure you're aware of a good deal of the offered explanations. To say that I.Q directly and accurately measures the biological thing intelligence, and that because a certain group of people have an on average lower I.Q than another group means that they have an on average lower intelligence is to postulate the empirical statement that there be some biological cause- an intelligence gene or something along those lines present in different socio-economic groups which accounts for such a discrepancy. If, on the other hand, you allow for the partial or total social construction of the measurement I.Q then you can quite easily explain the discrepancies in I.Q in terms of socio-economic causes- which seems much more intuitive.
ah ok, well there's 2 sides to it.
On a normal scientific level that's fully acceptible, and what I was saying is that within a paradigm there is a consensus about the degree of objectiveness of such theories, We wouldn't get anywhere constantly debating objectiveness.
on a philosophical level it's a bit more complex:
Karl popper would say, you'll never know because you can't test all metals (some may be even undiscovered). It's the same as his famous "white swan theory": you can try to prove the theory 'all swans are wight" every time you see a white swan but it takes only one unexpected black swan to completely destroy the theory, Popper argued that science should try to falsify theories instead of trying to prove them.
Popper did say that continously proving a theorie improves it's 'degree of corroberation', meaning it's correspondance to the truth.
Duhem, Quine and Kuhn had some comments to all this, some questioning even the objectivity of empirics.
I agree on that, it's just fun to try and get your mind around these kind of things, although it can get very nihilistic very quick.
I totally agree on two points- that objectivity isn't objectivity by virtue of a bunch of scientists getting together and agreeing on something, and that scientific theories are impossible to prove beyond all doubt. However, I would say that objectivity is objectivity, independent from opinion or proof. If a scientific theory is objectively correct, then it's objectively correct, and it doesn't need to be proven so. Why we need to prove it is an epistemic issue- what we hold to be objective.
I strongly agree with this post. I was tested at 146 or 148 (I can't remember!!!) about 6 years ago, and joined Mensa as a result. Since then I have only told prob a handful of people, because I don't like people to know. Some people act differently around you.
At school I never really fitted in with a specific group, i.e. sporters, populars, goths, etc. and generally flitted from one to the other. Since school, different people I have met and jobs I have worked in have allowed me to expand my social skills and I now get on well with pretty much anyone I meet. In a strange way I do still find it difficult to fit in with a group, yet I still have friends from vastly different social circles.
As far as having a high IQ giving you a step up in life, I disagree. I am nowhere near where I want to be, and sometimes feel that being intelligent can be as much of a hindrance as a help. :-\
Genetic inheritance is more important than socioeconomic status.
This is proven in the excerpt from Rushston's book.
I'm copying this directly from Race, Evolution, and Behavior by Rushton
http://www.amazon.com/Race-Evolution-Behavior-History-Perspective/dp/0965683613
More respectable?
You'll be hard pressed to find someone more "respectable" than J. Philippe Rushton.
What you are saying could be true, except they tested a large group of people;
you won't find a "spoke in the wagon" leading to these results.
If it was a small sample that might be the case.
Your response is typical of someone grasping at straws to defend a position,
because the scientific evidence makes people feel unconformable.
No matter how convincing the evidence, someone will jump through hoops to discredit it,
because the end result is not acceptable in the politically correct world we live in.
I agree, you would have to look into the test more to determine how accurate or unbiased they may be.
The results however are pretty self-explanatory. Also, this is but one small excerpt in a book that examines not just intelligence test, but cranial capacity, exhaustive measurements of brains, neuron counts, documented sexual patterns, age of sexual maturity, and so on. The book is very thourough, but you would have to read it because I'm not typing it all out ;)
These aren't my arguments.lots and lots of correlations remain just that, correlations. They will never be proven to be a causality, simply because these matters are very complicated and have many confounders. Saying that these correlations are causalities waiting to be proven is not correct.
What you are saying is true; this study doesn't prove it beyond ALL doubt.
Looking at the state of the world I believe the implication of these results to be true.
Actual measurements of skulls, cranial capacity, neurons, sexual maturity rates are indisputable.
You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but we know in time it will be proven true. :)
These aren't my arguments.
What you are saying is true; this study doesn't prove it beyond ALL doubt.
Looking at the state of the world I believe the implication of these results to be true.
Actual measurements of skulls, cranial capacity, neurons, sexual maturity rates are indisputable.
You can argue that correlation doesn't equal causation, but we know in time it will be proven true. :)
Neuroscientists are trying to find out just what intelligence is re brain processes, etc. That might be a more rewarding path than the endless debates about so-called intelligence tests.
You can argue over why the results are what they are until you are blue in the face...
the results of the test themselves remain true, and this has definite social implications.
Based on the state of the world, I will make my own inference.
This is just the beginning; the Pioneer Fund will generate more studies and more thorough test.
We can hardly know anything beyond all doubt; all we do is make inferences.
The overwhelming evidence points to the implications being true.
More respectable?LOL. If memory serves, he's at Western and he is universally reviled by the rest of the profs there and is more than a bit of an ambarrassment for the rest of the unis in Canada. I remember a few years back, he was particularly noted when they were discussing the merits/problems of tenure (as they do every 10-odd years).
You'll be hard pressed to find someone more "respectable" than J. Philippe Rushton.
What you are saying could be true, except they tested a large group of people;
you won't find a "spoke in the wagon" leading to these results.
If it was a small sample that might be the case.
Your response is typical of someone grasping at straws to defend a position,
because the scientific evidence makes people feel unconformable.
No matter how convincing the evidence, someone will jump through hoops to discredit it,
because the end result is not acceptable in the politically correct world we live in.
I agree, you would have to look into the test more to determine how accurate or unbiased they may be.
The results however are pretty self-explanatory. Also, this is but one small excerpt in a book that examines not just intelligence test, but cranial capacity, exhaustive measurements of brains, neuron counts, documented sexual patterns, age of sexual maturity, and so on. The book is very thourough, but you would have to read it because I'm not typing it all out ;)
We can also waste time arguing over the definition of intelligence,
meanwhile everyone that has spent 5 minutes talking to a retard knows what intelligence is.
High IQs, generally, correlate with high success.
More often than not, correlation IS indicative of causation.
When you see many, many, correlations, all pointing to the same conclusion, you start to form a logical opinion.
Hardly. Results are results, that's it, end of story. They don't indicate anything, don't entail anything, don't imply anything, they don't even show with certainty the status of the working hypotheses. All an I.Q test result shows is an I.Q test result. If John goes in, sits for an I.Q test and scores 100, the results show nothing more than the fact that he went in to a particular place at a particular time and scored 100 on an I.Q test.
It is why the results are the way they are which is important. It is why they are the way they are which will either lend support for or against your argument. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, then you need to discuss why. No one cares for the statistical data- as I said, you can quote ten million studies crammed full of statistical data showing your case- someone from the opposite camp can do the same.
You can infer anything you like from a set of I.Q test data. Make your own inferences till the cows come home, you're just another person with an opinion. Offer a reasonable argument to support your claims and someone might listen to you- all you've done though is shout the same claim over and over again. Maybe if you say it enough times it'll come true...monster realization of the truth of your recent intelligence claims ::)
That's right. I'm glad you recognise it.
Using your example, it shows John has a 100 IQ.
The results of the test have definite social implications. Why the results are what they are is up for debate.
The original hypotheses that spurned the test remains unproven definitively.
Really? No one cares for the statistical data? What an absurd statement. Statisticians are paid in the millions to provide statistical data to companies all the time. And no, you're wrong. You can't provide ten million studies showing the opposite of the studies in the excerpt from Rushton's book. I challenge you to do so. hahaha. I won't hold my breath.
My inferences are based on many studies all pointing to the same conclusion.
Many, many, many studies, all pointing to the sames conclusion.
I'll wait for you to provide some studies("millions" preferably) showing the opposite of the studies in Rushton's book.
You implied Rushton is disreputable when you hinted that he would include studies that aren't "more respected" in his book. The reality is, you know nothing about these studies. You made your own inference that they aren't respected after a taking a cursory glance over one paragraph describing them.
Rushton is one of the MOST respected psychology proffesors in the world. Despite the controversial nature of his studies, he is still recognised as such. The people in acedemia that would say otherwise(people like Jared Diamond) do so only because of the nature of his work. I imagine they would want to shut him up. Furthermore, if you want to discredit Rushton because all he shows is many, many, many correlations pointing to the same conclusion, you would have to discredit phsychology, since scarcely anything in psychology has been proven definitively.
Rushton doesn't claim to prove anything definitively.
Psychology is not a hard science like mathematics, and the ideas being proliferated are constantly changing.
Freud is being phased out by mainstream psyhcology.
J. Philippe Rushton
-Professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
-Holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc)
-Is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations.
-He is a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience.
-Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles.
-In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 11th most cited psychologist.
-Professor Rushton is listed in the Who's Who in Science and Technology, Who's Who in International Authors, and Who's Who in Canada.
(My response point-by-point to parrellel your quote-by-quote)
- Well sure, I never denied that. What is someone supposed to do, deny that an I.Q test score is an I.Q test score? As I said, an I.Q test score is an I.Q test score, and nothing more. If John scores 100 on the I.Q test, then John scored 100 on the I.Q test. The following does not necessarily obtain (or, for my mind, contingently obtain): If John scores 100 on the I.Q test, then either his intelligence is at a certain level, or his intelligence is higher than a person who scored 90 on the same I.Q test. This is because I.Q test scores are multiply realizable. Yes, the results have social implications- I am in complete agreement with you here. What those implications are, however, is a different story. Further, to hold to a particular view and cite a number of supporting studies is not to indicate implication or entailment to that particular model.
- Tell me, have you heard the term exaggeration before? No? You mean that if I went through all your previous posts I wouldn't find a single case of you using either metaphor or hyperbole? Do me a favour ::)
- I don't know whether you've comprehended my point or not- so I'll say it again, simply- a certain study result does not entail any conclusion beyond the concluding that a certain study result was obtained. As was already written several times, an I.Q score is nothing but an I.Q score, as ten million I.Q scores are nothing more than ten million I.Q scores. Sure, you can infer what you want from that; don't pretend, though, that because you have more studies that your inference is somehow more certain or valid. I implied nothing of the sort about Rushton- you read what you wanted to into my words; indeed, I was agreeing with Rushton that the particular views that he cited were flawed.
- I don't really think I need bother with the rest of your post since it is mainly dressed-up argument from authority, a strategy you seem to be fond of judging by some of your other posts. I'm not sure whether you're familiar with what argument from authority is or not- perhaps you should look it up. I could, however, lavish the same ludicrous praise on Newton. Would that make classical mechanics any more sensible when applied to micro systems? ::)
Canadian? ;D
Inuit ;)
beothuck :D
beothuck :DLOL. I think you're 200 years too late with this one. :D
LOL. I think you're 200 years too late with this one. :D