200 IQ and 500 bench we must get him to post here!

[G o a t b o y]

They measured me at -11.33 % bodyfat.

According to Jim Quinn? 

[Vince B]

We can't even come up with a unified theory of hypertrophy that explains all growth and non-growth from exercise!

[Vince B]

Can we imagine the crap discussed by the superintelligent? When we don't comprehend what is said is it because we are limited or because it is crap? I would have thought the superintelligent could make complex notions understandable. That they seldom do suggests they are verbalizing and nothing more. If original theories are proposed and they have merit surely some good would result and people would eventually see the value in those theories. At the moment I can't see anything resulting from our smart hero Langan except heaps of discussions about him and his peculiar theory of reality. Most people simply do not comprehend what he is talking about because Langan makes up new words and concepts to support his thesis. I would prefer if he would dismount and engage those in a manner that everyone comprehends.

I accept that anyone who can score 47 out of 48 on the Mega test is superintelligent. You just have to look at some of those questions and marvel that anyone could easily answer them.

[Jujoshu]

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...

To answer a few of these points; Actually, thinking is an exercise. Before all thought is a sort of pure consciousness itself that thought grows out of. Similar to clouds floating across a screen. When people think or philosophize they are exercising, albeit mentally.

The Youtube interviews are a little misleading because you're looking at snapshots of statements made by Chris Langan and not the whole picture. In a different interview I heard him indeed make the statement that he cared little about his perceived status. This is along the same lines of William James Sidis. His ultimate goal was happiness and not status, wealth or whatever. Therefore, if collecting railroad street car transfers made him happy and served him well his life wasn't lived in vain. Same with Chris Langan.

The God Chris Langan refers to is not a Judeo-Christian concept of God. It's a peering into a mystical aspect of the universe that the intellect can point to but not comprehend. This isn't that different from what eastern mystics have been telling us about for thousands of years. The idea of Tao or Brahman. Langan's idea is more scientific but it seems to have similarities. It's mysticism dressed up as science.

Lastly, don't confuse IQ scores with infallibility. People who score well on IQ tests are prone to making dumb decisions, dumb statements, and foolish actions. They are human just like everyone else and we have to be careful to not expect some type of superhuman accomplishments out of ordinary people with extraordinary IQs.

[suckmymuscle]

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 

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 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

 

[Dipadidu]

  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.

[Vince B]

It is possible that someone might have a higher IQ than predicted by statistics. Same goes for other factors such as height and weight.

[legbreaker]

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.   

[suckmymuscle]

this is the proof: you don't have any clue about statistics and on't know what you're talking about.

  Shut up, newb.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Suckmymuscle,,,  Who are you doubting, Chris or the actual many testers he has been tested by that make the claims?

  I.Q tests have ceillings of 160 for adults; scores above this are statistically extrapolated.

You do understand that these are well documented and have been spoken about on tv, right?

  He scored 174 on the Mega Test, one of the few I.Q tests designed for measuring exceptional intelligence. It is extremely high, but 174 is not 195...

You mentioned fields medal winners....Do you know if Ted Kazinsky was one.  I thought I read that he was, but not sure.   

  No, Kaczinsky never won the Filrds Medal.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Dipadidu]

alienssuckedmybrainout just 2 hints:


-standard deviation
-Intelligence is a construct
-there is not only one iq-scale
...

[Herc]

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. 

[hangclean]

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.

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.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you would think using caps would be possible.

[onlyme]

Whats the big deal about this guy, we already have Goodrum and Apenis.  Together they have a 200 IQ and can bench 500

[Vince B]

I am interested in why Langan got one question wrong out of 48. Wonder which one it was? There was no time limit on the test.

[suckmymuscle]

alienssuckedmybrainout just 2 hints:

  How incredibly creative, you anal queen...

-standard deviation

  So what's your point? That's what I said.

-Intelligence is a construct

  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.

-there is not only one iq-scale

..

  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

[Samourai Pizzacat]

IQ tests loose value when they get to extremes of the spectrum, they are a decent measure (when applied correctly) to get a view of the individuals capabilities, within 3 standard deviations from the mean (55-145), It can never be the end all, IQ tests have their limitations and those are well known, assesments and structured interviews can reveal important clues aswell.

[Samourai Pizzacat]

Intelligence Quotient is a construct, intelligence isn't.

[suckmymuscle]

Intelligence Quotient is a construct, intelligence isn't.

  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

[chris_mason]

 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

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...

[Debussey]

"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!

Debussey = a retard, Debusseys IQ = 65. Next week, Debussey will try to bench press 60 pounds. That = a new record.


And in all seriousness Vince, this place is just for fun, its just an online fantasyworld. Don't take everything seriously here, its not meant that way. Many people here = playing a constructed character (thats what Debussey is). In real life, if you met anybody from this place, the chance of having a friendly conversation + a great time: very high.

[jr]

     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.

[Necrosis]

The rubiks cube was invented in 1974, while Einstein was 30 years old in 1909 and died in 1955.

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.

[realkarateblackbelt]

  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."

[Debussey]

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."

You used to be a gimmick account.

Why are you acting like a normal person all the sudden?