Philosopher Chris Langan was dubbed America’s smartest man by the U.S. media after he correctly answered 47 out of 48 questions on the iconic Mega Test (it’s estimated that only one in 100 million U.S. adults were capable of scoring that high during the years that test was used). Langan’s genius was also confirmed by professional testing arranged by ABC news:
It was further confirmed by him winning $250 K on a TV quiz show, and even by his stratospheric head size:
Recently, a reader kindly informed me of evidence that Langan may have been reading one of my blogs! Back in July 2014 I reported (on my less active blog) that Harvard students scored 128 on an abbreviated version of the WAIS-R which I noted was much lower than their SAT IQ equivalents, and, in the same article, I also estimated that tenured professors average IQ 133 (I’ve since revised both figures downward).
Thus, I was honored to learn that Langan mentioned in a Quora answer the same obscure Harvard study I publicized in my July 2014 article (along with the comparison to their SAT scores that I had made) along with virtually an identical IQ estimate for tenured professors I had made:
This strongly suggests Langan had read my article, which makes sense since my article was extensively cited by Quora.
So I advise commenters not to say anything too dumb, because you never know when America’s smartest man might be reading!
in the english speaking world alcohol intake is positively correlated with social class. peepee needs to give evidence of the brain damaging effects of alcohol or prove she’s a prole.
as rr and paul fussell’s son can attest the harmful effects of steroids are greatly exaggerated. the same is true for alcohol. the cerebellum is the most sensitive part of the brain to alcohol. in men who have drunk much more than i do and for much longer, those who are well nourished show no discernible atrophy of the cerebellum. this means no brain damage at all. alcoholic dementia is never diagnosed. but people believe it exists. the most common dementia is vascular dementia. it often preceeds alzheimer’s. what is good for the heart is good for the brain. moderate imbibition prevents dementia peepee. being fat is worse for your brain than being drunk.
and the effects of steroids vary a lot with the person. the same is true of alcohol.
it is true that most people could not drink as much as churchill and live as long as he did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/drinks/the-day-i-tried-to-match-churchill-drink-for-drink/
churchill was a way bigger boozer than me. and i am not nor have ever been physically dependent on alcohol. and i’m a lot bigger than winston.
another great boozer PM was pitt the younger. he may have killed himself with drink.
churchill won the war and won the nobel prize in literature for work he wrote at an age much greater than mine. why had his brain not been destroyed by alcohol?
peepee is a silly goose.
off
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200903/are-people-schizophrenia-living-dream
It s not off topic Santo because the same default network uncontrolled mode that make schizo leave in a inhabited world where everything is symbol and experience inside them images and sounds and synesthesia etc is – by being almost always on off mode with me – is refusing to give me access to any image, to construct any memory, to imagine any thing with any internal sens, to ruminate on close people , to reflect on bad and good etc . Normal people are like schizo to me because my only mode is the one that people use to solve a problem or plan a task. I have no identity building. I wonder if personal experiences are an evolutionary advantage or an archaic trait …. autistic people have a default network but it is believed to be badly connected . Not really on off mode. Many autistic can’t disconnect there default network while concentrating .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network
I have relatively hyper-active default network, not a schizo levels, thanks GOOOOD, but still there…
Interestingly seems there is a progressively palatable, or not, evidences connecting depressive mode// excessive rumination//anxiety and creativity, in both cases, there are a global hyper-connectivity.
you’re living a dream if you think gay men can fall in love.
they can, but only with women.
homosexuality is a myth. there are no genuine homosexuals.
Absolutely stupid!!!!
Yes, PP and its ”smart censor” is failling again…
Some people here can say any shit and it will be accepted…
Firstly, no there such thing
”fall in love” in the way your lethargic mind is pseudo-thinking…
indeed, it’s funny a complete loser as you talk about this themes…
Love = accute friendship
”heterossexual” love = accute friendship with reproductive bonus and nothing more…
This idiotic specieman heard that 90’s romantic Music to have this demented failled insight, or better, off-sight.
Another observation about this intellectually starved ”goy’ is that he is talking about …. homossexuality… as if he is a authority in this stuff…
it’s
compli gay ted…
if love is acute friendship for homos, then homos don’t know what love is.
NEVER a genuine ”argument” by this PSEUDO-GINIOUS…
You even know what friendship is retard…
You so idiotic you give low value to friendship as if it is less relevant and otherwise, it’s underlying …
A complete emotionally/socially/morally retarded vomiting shit all the time as if it is a absolute authority in this themes, such a complete pathetic and miserable soul…
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/we-might-absorb-billions-of-viruses-every-day/547415/
Pumpkin said that he’s watching from the sidelines with American Tribalism disguised as capitalism.
This is all you need to know about America. Nothing else matters, not even IQ, unless you have high IQ and your tribal affiliation works for you.
But it seems like Jews are losing it, as we see quite a number of high profile Jews suffer a meltdown from sexual harassment.
I call this “the strange case of Christopher Langan.” Unfortunately, Christopher Langan is probably an argument more against the validity of IQ testing than anything else.
I think IQ–which is just a number on a test–is, statistically speaking, a roughly reasonable assessment of intelligence if the test is serious. HOWEVER, I would say that IQ is at best a statistic, i.e., that it has at best a correlation to intelligence that is less than 1. Apparently a lot of people think that one’s IQ fairly well defines one’s actual intelligence, so that one equals the other. I’m not sure whether you, pumpkinperson, think that, but I get that impression.
I’m not sure what Christopher Langan’s life has really been like, but I find his academic career, as he recounts it, a bit incompatible with being “the most intelligent man in America.”
Also, I’m not particularly impressed with the idea that he passes the “big head test”–since not everyone with extraordinary intelligence has a very large head. Probably, intelligence is a function of several variables, only one of which is head size. Some functions of several variables yield chaotic systems, such as the weather, which was proved as recently as 1960 to be unpredictable. (Weather forecasts are probabilistic.)
What does strike me about Langan is the reasoning he engages in. When he talks about the supposed correlation between head size and intelligence, he infers that correlation from a comparison among radically different animal species. He is relying on facts that are no more than common knowledge. Why doesn’t he consider intra-species head-size variation? It suggests he simply doesn’t know more than the obvious.
His comments about Trump are especially incredible. Trump is no idiot, but putting his IQ at greater than 135 flies in the face of the obviously stupid things he has said, as well as his inability to get the right answer to the multiplication problem 17 x 6 (from the Howard Stern show, clip available online). None of his kids got it right either. (The question was pulled out of thin air by Howard Stern during a discussion of the intelligence required to be accepted to Wharton.) If you subscribe to the g theory of intelligence, it’s hard to believe he could have an IQ anywhere above the 80th percentile when you witness a performance like that.
In general, the way Trump speaks (now and in the past) belies any claims of great intelligence. Christopher Langan, however, believes that anyone who has been watching Trump “very closely” would realize that he could “easily work as a high-functioning professor at a top business school” like Wharton. I suppose I should qualify my comments by asking whether you have good reason to believe that Christopher Langan is definitely the author of the post you cite. (I haven’t researched it; I barely have the time to write this.) Seriously, phony accounts are not uncommon.
In short, I’m not convinced that Langan isn’t simply a fraud or a counterexample to the presumed validity of IQ testing. Not claiming to know, though.