I'm not going to argue math with you because I just don't remember a lot of it. From what I remember though, ZFC does not allow for a set of all sets (universal set) as it leads to Russell's Paradox. But the author is talking about exactly that: a universal set - a set that contains everything including itself. Which means he's using naive set theory, which is a really bad way to try and explain the universe because it contradicts itself. BTW, wasn't ZFC created in order to avoid naive set theory and Cantor's Paradox in the first place?
That's where the author of the crackpot article is sorely mistaken: Just because he is trying to create a framework for a universal set does not mean that he has to use naive set theory. In fact he actually defines a new language and objects that are NOT sets, so they cannot produce the inconsistencies they do in naive set theory. ZFC was made to formalize the naive theory and prevent Russel's paradox from occurring. Later on in his paper, he uses the axiom of choice, which is perhaps the most arguable aspect of the entire thing; however, the axiom of choice is consistent with ZFC. From what I've seen the guy is using contradictory (and outdated) math and confusing writing in order to further his Intelligent Design agenda. You know what his writing reads like? Like he's trying too hard to sound intelligent. There is too much word play and not enough substance. It might sound like that, but to invalidate his argument based on his diction is nearly ad hominem. Devoutly religious individuals make choices based on how things "sound", or "feel" all of the time, but that does not determine the consistency of their beliefs. A cursory look on Google showed that none of the PhD's, who commented on this guy, take him seriously. Most consider his theory to be nonsense and his writing pure drivel. Maybe their IQ are not high enough to understand him?
While I don't doubt his intelligence, it is a known fact that he took the Mega Test twice. First time under the pseudonym "Eric Hart" and the second time under his real name. Which is not allowed because the test doesn't change. Besides that, Mega accepts results from unsupervised tests. The mega test requires one month to answer those questions. I doubt he had to take it twice. Perhaps you should give it a try. The irony is that you are trusting PhD's, because they are socially accepted as being experts, yet they do not explicitly show it is inconsistent. You've placed enough of your faith in IQ to determine that Langan must be extremely intelligent, so why is it such a great leap to assume that it holds some truth?
Langon is trying to invent a new version of set theory that will allow him to have a universal set without hitting the paradox. However, his whole self-replication language thing is pure gibberish. ZFC deals with the paradox problem by not allowing a universal set because simply by allowing it, it invalidates itself. This guy embraces naive set theory from the get go and then uses word play in order to describe some sort of a language that will allow for a set that contains itself because the rules that he invented allow for it? You don't say...
Besides, even according to Langan, his theory cannot be proven. So we have a guy who tries to explain the universe by saying that he has created a new version of set theory whose syntax will allow for a set of all sets.... But it cannot be proven!
I'm not trying to invalidate his theory purely based on his choice to write it in a particular way. My point is that he could have chosen to use simpler language and get straight to the point instead of writing a page to describe why naive set theory doesn't work, for example.
Who is this paper aimed at anyway? If it's average people then it's worded way too confusingly and utilizes concepts that an average Joe Shmoe wouldn't understand. If it's aimed at mathematicians and physicists then he spends way too much time explaining concepts to people who use them every day. My belief is that the paper is a philosophical piece at best.
As far as his taking the test twice, it's actually on the same page where you linked that Titan test from (the page that lists different types of IQ tests, not the actual test page). Speaking of which, the test you linked, the Titan test, is a more difficult version of the Mega test. Langon and "Eric Hart" took the Mega test not the Titan test. The first time he took the test, he scored 42. A score of 43 means that the IQ is estimated to be at about 177 and that is the cut off point for the Mega Society.
As for trusting PhD's... Who else am I going to trust? The person who claims to have created a new set theory which allows for a universal set without invalidating itself; a theory that cannot be proven? Or a person who puts too much faith into Langon's high IQ? No. I'm going to trust the people who do this crap for a living. They are the experts, after all. Also, in this case, I'm going to trust my hazy recollection of set theories.
High IQ by itself doesn't mean much if you're not properly schooled. He claims to have taught himself all sorts of subjects but he did not do so in an academic setting. The PhD's, the people you're trying to invalidate, have actual proof that they have learned all sorts of subjects.
BTW, John H. Sununu (White House Chief of Staff under George H W Bush), holds one of the highest scores on the Mega test with an estimated IQ of 180. Which means what? You may wonder. Absolutely nothing because IQ by itself means nothing without proper schooling.
Langon is trying to invent a new version of set theory that will allow him to have a universal set without hitting the paradox. However, his whole self-replication language thing is pure gibberish. ZFC deals with the paradox problem by not allowing a universal set because simply by allowing it, it invalidates itself. This guy embraces naive set theory from the get go and then uses word play in order to describe some sort of a language that will allow for a set that contains itself because the rules that he invented allow for it? You don't say...
Besides, even according to Langan, his theory cannot be proven. So we have a guy who tries to explain the universe by saying that he has created a new version of set theory whose syntax will allow for a set of all sets.... But it cannot be proven!
He meant that it cannot be proven in ZFC, which is kind of obvious and entirely the point. If there were already a language which accommodated a universal set and did not allow for Cantor's theorem, then there would have been no point in writing the paper. His theory can only be proven in the language he defines loosely in his paper. His axiomatic system is not an extension of naive set theory; it obviously has different axioms to allow for his new notion of a set that is a recursive structure.
I'm not trying to invalidate his theory purely based on his choice to write it in a particular way. My point is that he could have chosen to use simpler language and get straight to the point instead of writing a page to describe why naive set theory doesn't work, for example.
Who is this paper aimed at anyway? If it's average people then it's worded way too confusingly and utilizes concepts that an average Joe Shmoe wouldn't understand. If it's aimed at mathematicians and physicists then he spends way too much time explaining concepts to people who use them every day. My belief is that the paper is a philosophical piece at best.
As far as his taking the test twice, it's actually on the same page where you linked that Titan test from (the page that lists different types of IQ tests, not the actual test page). Speaking of which, the test you linked, the Titan test, is a more difficult version of the Mega test. Langon and "Eric Hart" took the Mega test not the Titan test. The first time he took the test, he scored 42. A score of 43 means that the IQ is estimated to be at about 177 and that is the cut off point for the Mega Society.
That's the problem: It's a belief and not something you have proven to yourself. You should attempt the titan test. I think it would be enlightening to see your score; take the entire period of one month to finish it, then submit it along with the fee.
As for trusting PhD's... Who else am I going to trust? The person who claims to have created a new set theory which allows for a universal set without invalidating itself; a theory that cannot be proven? Or a person who puts too much faith into Langon's high IQ? No. I'm going to trust the people who do this crap for a living. They are the experts, after all. Also, in this case, I'm going to trust my hazy recollection of set theories.
High IQ by itself doesn't mean much if you're not properly schooled. He claims to have taught himself all sorts of subjects but he did not do so in an academic setting. The PhD's, the people you're trying to invalidate, have actual proof that they have learned all sorts of subjects.
BTW, John H. Sununu (White House Chief of Staff under George H W Bush), holds one of the highest scores on the Mega test with an estimated IQ of 180. Which means what? You may wonder. Absolutely nothing because IQ by itself means nothing without proper schooling.
The problem is: How do you know that he isn't an expert if you don't know the extent of his knowledge? IQ tests are supposed to measure intelligence, so you should have a good idea of what his reasoning capabilities are by taking the test. If he can solve the incredibly complex problems created by psychometricians, then why wouldn't he be able to create a language of his own?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Langon is trying to invent a new version of set theory that will allow him to have a universal set without hitting the paradox. However, his whole self-replication language thing is pure gibberish. ZFC deals with the paradox problem by not allowing a universal set because simply by allowing it, it invalidates itself. This guy embraces naive set theory from the get go and then uses word play in order to describe some sort of a language that will allow for a set that contains itself because the rules that he invented allow for it? You don't say...
Besides, even according to Langan, his theory cannot be proven. So we have a guy who tries to explain the universe by saying that he has created a new version of set theory whose syntax will allow for a set of all sets.... But it cannot be proven!
He meant that it cannot be proven in ZFC, which is kind of obvious and entirely the point. If there were already a language which accommodated a universal set and did not allow for Cantor's theorem, then there would have been no point in writing the paper. His theory can only be proven in the language he defines loosely in his paper. His axiomatic system is not an extension of naive set theory; it obviously has different axioms to allow for his new notion of a set that is a recursive structure.
I'm not trying to invalidate his theory purely based on his choice to write it in a particular way. My point is that he could have chosen to use simpler language and get straight to the point instead of writing a page to describe why naive set theory doesn't work, for example.
Who is this paper aimed at anyway? If it's average people then it's worded way too confusingly and utilizes concepts that an average Joe Shmoe wouldn't understand. If it's aimed at mathematicians and physicists then he spends way too much time explaining concepts to people who use them every day. My belief is that the paper is a philosophical piece at best.
As far as his taking the test twice, it's actually on the same page where you linked that Titan test from (the page that lists different types of IQ tests, not the actual test page). Speaking of which, the test you linked, the Titan test, is a more difficult version of the Mega test. Langon and "Eric Hart" took the Mega test not the Titan test. The first time he took the test, he scored 42. A score of 43 means that the IQ is estimated to be at about 177 and that is the cut off point for the Mega Society.
That's the problem: It's a belief and not something you have proven to yourself. You should attempt the titan test. I think it would be enlightening to see your score; take the entire period of one month to finish it, then submit it along with the fee.
As for trusting PhD's... Who else am I going to trust? The person who claims to have created a new set theory which allows for a universal set without invalidating itself; a theory that cannot be proven? Or a person who puts too much faith into Langon's high IQ? No. I'm going to trust the people who do this crap for a living. They are the experts, after all. Also, in this case, I'm going to trust my hazy recollection of set theories.
High IQ by itself doesn't mean much if you're not properly schooled. He claims to have taught himself all sorts of subjects but he did not do so in an academic setting. The PhD's, the people you're trying to invalidate, have actual proof that they have learned all sorts of subjects.
BTW, John H. Sununu (White House Chief of Staff under George H W Bush), holds one of the highest scores on the Mega test with an estimated IQ of 180. Which means what? You may wonder. Absolutely nothing because IQ by itself means nothing without proper schooling.
The problem is: How do you know that he isn't an expert if you don't know the extent of his knowledge? IQ tests are supposed to measure intelligence, so you should have a good idea of what his reasoning capabilities are by taking the test. If he can solve the incredibly complex problems created by psychometricians, then why wouldn't he be able to create a language of his own?
His language makes sense only to himself. And you, apparently. Care to explain it to me? Actually, never mind. He defines it "loosely" in his paper. He basically says: my language works because the rules of the language, the rules I created, allow it to work. Unfortunately, even he admits that we can't prove it. If we can't prove it or even verify it, how can it be a true scientific theory? That is why I said that his theory is mostly philosophical.
The problem is that without anything to show for it, he's not an expert. For all you know, I can be the best martial artist in the world but without any sort of proof, how can you be sure? The PhDs have that proof as there are records of their academic achievements. There are no records of his academic accomplishments.
Based on your posts, I see that you put way too much faith into the fact that he has a high IQ. What I'm telling you is that a high IQ doesn't mean anything without academics. A high IQ doesn't mean that you have some sort of an insight into the workings of the universe.
As far as me taking the Titan test goes, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I never claimed to have a genius level IQ, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that my IQ is pretty average. Or are you implying that just because my IQ is lower than his then he's automatically right and I'm wrong?
Lastly. HE DID NOT TAKE THE TITAN TEST. Sorry for the caps but I mentioned it in my previous post and you completely ignored it. He took the Mega test, which is an easier version of the Titan test. He took it twice. The first time scoring at 42, which is bellow the minimum requirement in order to get into the Mega Society.
His language makes sense only to himself. And you, apparently. Care to explain it to me? Actually, never mind. He defines it "loosely" in his paper. He basically says: my language works because the rules of the language, the rules I created, allow it to work. Unfortunately, even he admits that we can't prove it. If we can't prove it or even verify it, how can it be a true scientific theory? That is why I said that his theory is mostly philosophical. The problem is that without anything to show for it, he's not an expert. For all you know, I can be the best martial artist in the world but without any sort of proof, how can you be sure? The PhDs have that proof as there are records of their academic achievements. There are no records of his academic accomplishments. Based on your posts, I see that you put way too much faith into the fact that he has a high IQ. What I'm telling you is that a high IQ doesn't mean anything without academics. A high IQ doesn't mean that you have some sort of an insight into the workings of the universe. As far as me taking the Titan test goes, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I never claimed to have a genius level IQ, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that my IQ is pretty average. Or are you implying that just because my IQ is lower than his then he's automatically right and I'm wrong? Lastly. HE DID NOT TAKE THE TITAN TEST. Sorry for the caps but I mentioned it in my previous post and you completely ignored it. He took the Mega test, which is an easier version of the Titan test. He took it twice. The first time scoring at 42, which is bellow the minimum requirement in order to get into the Mega Society.
Technically everything is provable in one language or another: All he has to show is that his language is consistent and then explicitly construct his theory from the axioms of his system. Why does an accomplishment have to be of academic merit in order for it to be recognized? A more relevant question would be: Why are you afraid to look at the titan test? I think if you took a look at the test, the interview and maybe even the paper that you'd get a better understanding of the issue.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I watched this guy's videos quite some time ago and have always been thoroughly underwhelmed.
His theories on God/god don't prove anything...anyone can get up there and put forth ideas...why does he get to put his forth and say that he has "proven" anything? Whether he comes out with a positive or negative outcome for the existence of God is ENTIRELY irrelevant. I mean, just the way the guy starts out completely ruins his credibility for me...if we can observe and recognize our need for binary logic then we will truly know the mind of (G)god? That's making an awful lot of assumptions on the nature of (G)god isn't it?
Besides, he's lying about his IQ anyway...nobody that smart would keep a mustache like that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
His language makes sense only to himself. And you, apparently. Care to explain it to me? Actually, never mind. He defines it "loosely" in his paper. He basically says: my language works because the rules of the language, the rules I created, allow it to work. Unfortunately, even he admits that we can't prove it. If we can't prove it or even verify it, how can it be a true scientific theory? That is why I said that his theory is mostly philosophical. The problem is that without anything to show for it, he's not an expert. For all you know, I can be the best martial artist in the world but without any sort of proof, how can you be sure? The PhDs have that proof as there are records of their academic achievements. There are no records of his academic accomplishments. Based on your posts, I see that you put way too much faith into the fact that he has a high IQ. What I'm telling you is that a high IQ doesn't mean anything without academics. A high IQ doesn't mean that you have some sort of an insight into the workings of the universe. As far as me taking the Titan test goes, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I never claimed to have a genius level IQ, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that my IQ is pretty average. Or are you implying that just because my IQ is lower than his then he's automatically right and I'm wrong? Lastly. HE DID NOT TAKE THE TITAN TEST. Sorry for the caps but I mentioned it in my previous post and you completely ignored it. He took the Mega test, which is an easier version of the Titan test. He took it twice. The first time scoring at 42, which is bellow the minimum requirement in order to get into the Mega Society.
Technically everything is provable in one language or another: All he has to show is that his language is consistent and then explicitly construct his theory from the axioms of his system. Why does an accomplishment have to be of academic merit in order for it to be recognized? A more relevant question would be: Why are you afraid to look at the titan test? I think if you took a look at the test, the interview and maybe even the paper that you'd get a better understanding of the issue.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
Mega test you mean, right?
Either one works, really.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
Mega test you mean, right?
Either one works, really.
They are both different. You know that right? The Titan test is much harder and Langan took the Mega test. Yet, you keep talking about this Titan test, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this Langan or this topic.
Anyway, if your answer to this is to look at the IQ test, I fear that this conversation has ran it's course.
They are both different. You know that right? The Titan test is much harder and Langan took the Mega test. Yet, you keep talking about this Titan test, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this Langan or this topic.
Anyway, if your answer to this is to look at the IQ test, I fear that this conversation has ran it's course.
Well, you can lead a horse to water.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
They are both different. You know that right? The Titan test is much harder and Langan took the Mega test. Yet, you keep talking about this Titan test, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this Langan or this topic.
Anyway, if your answer to this is to look at the IQ test, I fear that this conversation has ran it's course.
Well, you can lead a horse to water.
You can ignore it all you want. The fact is that you're deliberately presenting misleading information.
You can ignore it all you want. The fact is that you're deliberately presenting misleading information.
How is the information that I have postedmisleading? Itcontains nothing but opinions and a proposed theory.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
I've been dropping hints like flies, but I guess I'll just come out and post it: Every post until this post has been sarcastic.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
I've been dropping hints like flies, but I guess I'll just come out and post it: Every post until this post has been sarcastic.
LOL you're good. A few times I thought that you were being sarcastic , especially with that "not dumber than Langan" comment but I wasn't sure.
You'd be surprised though. Some people actually do take him seriously.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
I've been dropping hints like flies, but I guess I'll just come out and post it: Every post until this post has been sarcastic.
pissing in a sea of piss are we?
It's at least good to know that you're smart enough to laugh at this guy.
Did anybody else notice his assertion regarding his IQ? When he says that it's somewhere between 190 and 210...that's a HUGE margin when you're talking about IQ's folks. The difference between someone with an IQ or 80 and 100 is immense, just as a difference of 130 and 150 is quite significant...Granted I would assume that the margin of difference gets smaller as the IQ gets higher, but 20 points is still a large amount of space to give yourself.
I need to take a look at this "titan test". I've taken a real IQ test that was given to me by the state for placement in advanced courses and it was nothing like anything that I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else that people are taking supposed IQ tests.
edit: okay yeah, I looked into it...the tests that the Mega society accepts as valid are untimed and unsupervised...meaning that the speed at which a person calculates and reasons things in their mind isn't taken into account...the test that I took was a Stanford-Binet test, which has been the standard for years.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
sepher, maybe he doesn't enjoy doing whatever it takes to be "successful". Also not everyone can be successful. You still need people working menial jobs. You also need to varying levels of accomplishment to even label someone a success.
Furthermore, some people's life circumstances make it difficult succeed. Maybe they had to start working early in life to support themselves or their family. This forced them to drop out of high school or did not allow them to attend college. They will have a very difficult time recovering from those circumstances, but it doesn't make them any less bright.
It's at least good to know that you're smart enough to laugh at this guy.
Did anybody else notice his assertion regarding his IQ? When he says that it's somewhere between 190 and 210...that's a HUGE margin when you're talking about IQ's folks. The difference between someone with an IQ or 80 and 100 is immense, just as a difference of 130 and 150 is quite significant...Granted I would assume that the margin of difference gets smaller as the IQ gets higher, but 20 points is still a large amount of space to give yourself.
I need to take a look at this "titan test". I've taken a real IQ test that was given to me by the state for placement in advanced courses and it was nothing like anything that I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else that people are taking supposed IQ tests.
edit: okay yeah, I looked into it...the tests that the Mega society accepts as valid are untimed and unsupervised...meaning that the speed at which a person calculates and reasons things in their mind isn't taken into account...the test that I took was a Stanford-Binet test, which has been the standard for years.
Why do you put so much faith in IQ tests?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
First: IQ test do not measure how smart someone is pass a certain age. It just becomes a knowledge test.
This guy scares me! Wow! Did anyone watch the interview? He said he would like to rule the world. Aiming to enlighten the world I can see but he wants to rule the world.
-- "Any free people have the right to choose how it wants to be govern thats the essence of democracy. It's sad when America has chosen for the stability and consistency of a dictatorship and doing it democratically" -utnow
sepher, maybe he doesn't enjoy doing whatever it takes to be "successful". Also not everyone can be successful. You still need people working menial jobs. You also need to varying levels of accomplishment to even label someone a success. Furthermore, some people's life circumstances make it difficult succeed. Maybe they had to start working early in life to support themselves or their family. This forced them to drop out of high school or did not allow them to attend college. They will have a very difficult time recovering from those circumstances, but it doesn't make them any less bright.
Gotta keep it in the context of 'smartest man' when it comes to my mentioning 'success'. I didn't mean to sound like I was targeting his career choice. He self-bills himself as having a double life of a bouncer, and a genius. If anything, he's been successful at being a bouncer for 20 years. In the other life he claims to have there are no big successes.
It's at least good to know that you're smart enough to laugh at this guy.
Did anybody else notice his assertion regarding his IQ? When he says that it's somewhere between 190 and 210...that's a HUGE margin when you're talking about IQ's folks. The difference between someone with an IQ or 80 and 100 is immense, just as a difference of 130 and 150 is quite significant...Granted I would assume that the margin of difference gets smaller as the IQ gets higher, but 20 points is still a large amount of space to give yourself.
I need to take a look at this "titan test". I've taken a real IQ test that was given to me by the state for placement in advanced courses and it was nothing like anything that I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else that people are taking supposed IQ tests.
edit: okay yeah, I looked into it...the tests that the Mega society accepts as valid are untimed and unsupervised...meaning that the speed at which a person calculates and reasons things in their mind isn't taken into account...the test that I took was a Stanford-Binet test, which has been the standard for years.
Why do you put so much faith in IQ tests?
I'm not sure what you mean by faith.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
How exactly does the Stanford-Binet test measure intelligence? Why don't any universities use IQ tests for placement of students?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Comments
Langon is trying to invent a new version of set theory that will allow him to have a universal set without hitting the paradox. However, his whole self-replication language thing is pure gibberish. ZFC deals with the paradox problem by not allowing a universal set because simply by allowing it, it invalidates itself. This guy embraces naive set theory from the get go and then uses word play in order to describe some sort of a language that will allow for a set that contains itself because the rules that he invented allow for it? You don't say...
Besides, even according to Langan, his theory cannot be proven. So we have a guy who tries to explain the universe by saying that he has created a new version of set theory whose syntax will allow for a set of all sets.... But it cannot be proven!
I'm not trying to invalidate his theory purely based on his choice to write it in a particular way. My point is that he could have chosen to use simpler language and get straight to the point instead of writing a page to describe why naive set theory doesn't work, for example.
Who is this paper aimed at anyway? If it's average people then it's worded way too confusingly and utilizes concepts that an average Joe Shmoe wouldn't understand. If it's aimed at mathematicians and physicists then he spends way too much time explaining concepts to people who use them every day. My belief is that the paper is a philosophical piece at best.
As far as his taking the test twice, it's actually on the same page where you linked that Titan test from (the page that lists different types of IQ tests, not the actual test page). Speaking of which, the test you linked, the Titan test, is a more difficult version of the Mega test. Langon and "Eric Hart" took the Mega test not the Titan test. The first time he took the test, he scored 42. A score of 43 means that the IQ is estimated to be at about 177 and that is the cut off point for the Mega Society.
As for trusting PhD's... Who else am I going to trust? The person who claims to have created a new set theory which allows for a universal set without invalidating itself; a theory that cannot be proven? Or a person who puts too much faith into Langon's high IQ? No. I'm going to trust the people who do this crap for a living. They are the experts, after all. Also, in this case, I'm going to trust my hazy recollection of set theories.
High IQ by itself doesn't mean much if you're not properly schooled. He claims to have taught himself all sorts of subjects but he did not do so in an academic setting. The PhD's, the people you're trying to invalidate, have actual proof that they have learned all sorts of subjects.
BTW, John H. Sununu (White House Chief of Staff under George H W Bush), holds one of the highest scores on the Mega test with an estimated IQ of 180. Which means what? You may wonder. Absolutely nothing because IQ by itself means nothing without proper schooling.
Langon is trying to invent a new version of set theory that will allow him to have a universal set without hitting the paradox. However, his whole self-replication language thing is pure gibberish. ZFC deals with the paradox problem by not allowing a universal set because simply by allowing it, it invalidates itself. This guy embraces naive set theory from the get go and then uses word play in order to describe some sort of a language that will allow for a set that contains itself because the rules that he invented allow for it? You don't say...
Besides, even according to Langan, his theory cannot be proven. So we have a guy who tries to explain the universe by saying that he has created a new version of set theory whose syntax will allow for a set of all sets.... But it cannot be proven!
He meant that it cannot be proven in ZFC, which is kind of obvious and entirely the point. If there were already a language which accommodated a universal set and did not allow for Cantor's theorem, then there would have been no point in writing the paper. His theory can only be proven in the language he defines loosely in his paper. His axiomatic system is not an extension of naive set theory; it obviously has different axioms to allow for his new notion of a set that is a recursive structure.
I'm not trying to invalidate his theory purely based on his choice to write it in a particular way. My point is that he could have chosen to use simpler language and get straight to the point instead of writing a page to describe why naive set theory doesn't work, for example.
Who is this paper aimed at anyway? If it's average people then it's worded way too confusingly and utilizes concepts that an average Joe Shmoe wouldn't understand. If it's aimed at mathematicians and physicists then he spends way too much time explaining concepts to people who use them every day. My belief is that the paper is a philosophical piece at best.
As far as his taking the test twice, it's actually on the same page where you linked that Titan test from (the page that lists different types of IQ tests, not the actual test page). Speaking of which, the test you linked, the Titan test, is a more difficult version of the Mega test. Langon and "Eric Hart" took the Mega test not the Titan test. The first time he took the test, he scored 42. A score of 43 means that the IQ is estimated to be at about 177 and that is the cut off point for the Mega Society.
That's the problem: It's a belief and not something you have proven to yourself. You should attempt the titan test. I think it would be enlightening to see your score; take the entire period of one month to finish it, then submit it along with the fee.
As for trusting PhD's... Who else am I going to trust? The person who claims to have created a new set theory which allows for a universal set without invalidating itself; a theory that cannot be proven? Or a person who puts too much faith into Langon's high IQ? No. I'm going to trust the people who do this crap for a living. They are the experts, after all. Also, in this case, I'm going to trust my hazy recollection of set theories.
High IQ by itself doesn't mean much if you're not properly schooled. He claims to have taught himself all sorts of subjects but he did not do so in an academic setting. The PhD's, the people you're trying to invalidate, have actual proof that they have learned all sorts of subjects.
BTW, John H. Sununu (White House Chief of Staff under George H W Bush), holds one of the highest scores on the Mega test with an estimated IQ of 180. Which means what? You may wonder. Absolutely nothing because IQ by itself means nothing without proper schooling.
The problem is: How do you know that he isn't an expert if you don't know the extent of his knowledge? IQ tests are supposed to measure intelligence, so you should have a good idea of what his reasoning capabilities are by taking the test. If he can solve the incredibly complex problems created by psychometricians, then why wouldn't he be able to create a language of his own?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Langon is trying to invent a new version of set theory that will allow him to have a universal set without hitting the paradox. However, his whole self-replication language thing is pure gibberish. ZFC deals with the paradox problem by not allowing a universal set because simply by allowing it, it invalidates itself. This guy embraces naive set theory from the get go and then uses word play in order to describe some sort of a language that will allow for a set that contains itself because the rules that he invented allow for it? You don't say...
Besides, even according to Langan, his theory cannot be proven. So we have a guy who tries to explain the universe by saying that he has created a new version of set theory whose syntax will allow for a set of all sets.... But it cannot be proven!
He meant that it cannot be proven in ZFC, which is kind of obvious and entirely the point. If there were already a language which accommodated a universal set and did not allow for Cantor's theorem, then there would have been no point in writing the paper. His theory can only be proven in the language he defines loosely in his paper. His axiomatic system is not an extension of naive set theory; it obviously has different axioms to allow for his new notion of a set that is a recursive structure.
I'm not trying to invalidate his theory purely based on his choice to write it in a particular way. My point is that he could have chosen to use simpler language and get straight to the point instead of writing a page to describe why naive set theory doesn't work, for example.
Who is this paper aimed at anyway? If it's average people then it's worded way too confusingly and utilizes concepts that an average Joe Shmoe wouldn't understand. If it's aimed at mathematicians and physicists then he spends way too much time explaining concepts to people who use them every day. My belief is that the paper is a philosophical piece at best.
As far as his taking the test twice, it's actually on the same page where you linked that Titan test from (the page that lists different types of IQ tests, not the actual test page). Speaking of which, the test you linked, the Titan test, is a more difficult version of the Mega test. Langon and "Eric Hart" took the Mega test not the Titan test. The first time he took the test, he scored 42. A score of 43 means that the IQ is estimated to be at about 177 and that is the cut off point for the Mega Society.
That's the problem: It's a belief and not something you have proven to yourself. You should attempt the titan test. I think it would be enlightening to see your score; take the entire period of one month to finish it, then submit it along with the fee.
As for trusting PhD's... Who else am I going to trust? The person who claims to have created a new set theory which allows for a universal set without invalidating itself; a theory that cannot be proven? Or a person who puts too much faith into Langon's high IQ? No. I'm going to trust the people who do this crap for a living. They are the experts, after all. Also, in this case, I'm going to trust my hazy recollection of set theories.
High IQ by itself doesn't mean much if you're not properly schooled. He claims to have taught himself all sorts of subjects but he did not do so in an academic setting. The PhD's, the people you're trying to invalidate, have actual proof that they have learned all sorts of subjects.
BTW, John H. Sununu (White House Chief of Staff under George H W Bush), holds one of the highest scores on the Mega test with an estimated IQ of 180. Which means what? You may wonder. Absolutely nothing because IQ by itself means nothing without proper schooling.
The problem is: How do you know that he isn't an expert if you don't know the extent of his knowledge? IQ tests are supposed to measure intelligence, so you should have a good idea of what his reasoning capabilities are by taking the test. If he can solve the incredibly complex problems created by psychometricians, then why wouldn't he be able to create a language of his own?
His language makes sense only to himself. And you, apparently. Care to explain it to me? Actually, never mind. He defines it "loosely" in his paper. He basically says: my language works because the rules of the language, the rules I created, allow it to work. Unfortunately, even he admits that we can't prove it. If we can't prove it or even verify it, how can it be a true scientific theory? That is why I said that his theory is mostly philosophical.
The problem is that without anything to show for it, he's not an expert. For all you know, I can be the best martial artist in the world but without any sort of proof, how can you be sure? The PhDs have that proof as there are records of their academic achievements. There are no records of his academic accomplishments.
Based on your posts, I see that you put way too much faith into the fact that he has a high IQ. What I'm telling you is that a high IQ doesn't mean anything without academics. A high IQ doesn't mean that you have some sort of an insight into the workings of the universe.
As far as me taking the Titan test goes, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I never claimed to have a genius level IQ, as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that my IQ is pretty average. Or are you implying that just because my IQ is lower than his then he's automatically right and I'm wrong?
Lastly. HE DID NOT TAKE THE TITAN TEST. Sorry for the caps but I mentioned it in my previous post and you completely ignored it. He took the Mega test, which is an easier version of the Titan test. He took it twice. The first time scoring at 42, which is bellow the minimum requirement in order to get into the Mega Society.
Technically everything is provable in one language or another: All he has to show is that his language is consistent and then explicitly construct his theory from the axioms of his system. Why does an accomplishment have to be of academic merit in order for it to be recognized? A more relevant question would be: Why are you afraid to look at the titan test? I think if you took a look at the test, the interview and maybe even the paper that you'd get a better understanding of the issue.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I watched this guy's videos quite some time ago and have always been thoroughly underwhelmed.
His theories on God/god don't prove anything...anyone can get up there and put forth ideas...why does he get to put his forth and say that he has "proven" anything? Whether he comes out with a positive or negative outcome for the existence of God is ENTIRELY irrelevant. I mean, just the way the guy starts out completely ruins his credibility for me...if we can observe and recognize our need for binary logic then we will truly know the mind of (G)god? That's making an awful lot of assumptions on the nature of (G)god isn't it?
Besides, he's lying about his IQ anyway...nobody that smart would keep a mustache like that.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Technically everything is provable in one language or another: All he has to show is that his language is consistent and then explicitly construct his theory from the axioms of his system. Why does an accomplishment have to be of academic merit in order for it to be recognized? A more relevant question would be: Why are you afraid to look at the titan test? I think if you took a look at the test, the interview and maybe even the paper that you'd get a better understanding of the issue.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
Mega test you mean, right?
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
Mega test you mean, right?
Either one works, really.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Has he shown that his language is consistent? Have you seen the mathematical proof? He loosely defined this language in his paper, claiming that it's the answer to everything. Obviously, since it can't be proved one way or the other, we should just take his word for it?
That is the difference between a person with an academic background and a person without one. An academic will not automatically assume that something is true without having tested against the hypothesis. A non-academic will assume that something is true and look proof to support his hypothesis.
Did you conveniently skipped the part where he didn't take the Titan test but an easier Mega test? So, please stop pushing that Titan test on me. I'm not going to waste a month of my own time over an internet discussion. I have nothing to gain from taking an IQ test. If you're so interested, take it yourself and PM me your results in a month.
Read the part highlighted in read, look over the titan test and piece it together, or don't.
Mega test you mean, right?
Either one works, really.
They are both different. You know that right? The Titan test is much harder and Langan took the Mega test. Yet, you keep talking about this Titan test, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this Langan or this topic.
Anyway, if your answer to this is to look at the IQ test, I fear that this conversation has ran it's course.
They are both different. You know that right? The Titan test is much harder and Langan took the Mega test. Yet, you keep talking about this Titan test, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this Langan or this topic.
Anyway, if your answer to this is to look at the IQ test, I fear that this conversation has ran it's course.
Well, you can lead a horse to water.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Heres my you-tube response to Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krS7zsRnJcY
______________________________________________________________________
Feel The Freedom.
"If you're looking for the solution, you only need to look in the mirror." - Alex Jones
False Flag Terrorism.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a tactical strategy.
They are both different. You know that right? The Titan test is much harder and Langan took the Mega test. Yet, you keep talking about this Titan test, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this Langan or this topic.
Anyway, if your answer to this is to look at the IQ test, I fear that this conversation has ran it's course.
Well, you can lead a horse to water.
You can ignore it all you want. The fact is that you're deliberately presenting misleading information.
You can ignore it all you want. The fact is that you're deliberately presenting misleading information.
How is the information that I have posted misleading? It contains nothing but opinions and a proposed theory.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I'll take 1 lb of whatever you're smoking.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
You can ignore it all you want. The fact is that you're deliberately presenting misleading information.
How is the information that I have posted misleading? It contains nothing but opinions and a proposed theory.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
I've been dropping hints like flies, but I guess I'll just come out and post it: Every post until this post has been sarcastic.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
I've been dropping hints like flies, but I guess I'll just come out and post it: Every post until this post has been sarcastic.
LOL you're good. A few times I thought that you were being sarcastic , especially with that "not dumber than Langan" comment but I wasn't sure.
You'd be surprised though. Some people actually do take him seriously.
Anyway, GG!
You're presenting the Titan test as the test Langan took. When, in fact, he took the Mega test.
BTW, I watched the first few minutes of that guy's interview and all I have to say is that he's disrespectful and full of himself. The comment he made about Darwin, that Darwin is down in the toilet with an IQ of 130 even further proves my point that high IQ means nothing in the long run. Darwin, down in the toilet with his low IQ, did more for the world of science than Langan ever will do from his high horse.
All he managed to to do was release a crackpot theory which was laughed off Wikipedia.
I've been dropping hints like flies, but I guess I'll just come out and post it: Every post until this post has been sarcastic.
pissing in a sea of piss are we?
It's at least good to know that you're smart enough to laugh at this guy.
Did anybody else notice his assertion regarding his IQ? When he says that it's somewhere between 190 and 210...that's a HUGE margin when you're talking about IQ's folks. The difference between someone with an IQ or 80 and 100 is immense, just as a difference of 130 and 150 is quite significant...Granted I would assume that the margin of difference gets smaller as the IQ gets higher, but 20 points is still a large amount of space to give yourself.
I need to take a look at this "titan test". I've taken a real IQ test that was given to me by the state for placement in advanced courses and it was nothing like anything that I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else that people are taking supposed IQ tests.
edit: okay yeah, I looked into it...the tests that the Mega society accepts as valid are untimed and unsupervised...meaning that the speed at which a person calculates and reasons things in their mind isn't taken into account...the test that I took was a Stanford-Binet test, which has been the standard for years.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
sepher, maybe he doesn't enjoy doing whatever it takes to be "successful". Also not everyone can be successful. You still need people working menial jobs. You also need to varying levels of accomplishment to even label someone a success.
Furthermore, some people's life circumstances make it difficult succeed. Maybe they had to start working early in life to support themselves or their family. This forced them to drop out of high school or did not allow them to attend college. They will have a very difficult time recovering from those circumstances, but it doesn't make them any less bright.
pissing in a sea of piss are we?
It's at least good to know that you're smart enough to laugh at this guy.
Did anybody else notice his assertion regarding his IQ? When he says that it's somewhere between 190 and 210...that's a HUGE margin when you're talking about IQ's folks. The difference between someone with an IQ or 80 and 100 is immense, just as a difference of 130 and 150 is quite significant...Granted I would assume that the margin of difference gets smaller as the IQ gets higher, but 20 points is still a large amount of space to give yourself.
I need to take a look at this "titan test". I've taken a real IQ test that was given to me by the state for placement in advanced courses and it was nothing like anything that I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else that people are taking supposed IQ tests.
edit: okay yeah, I looked into it...the tests that the Mega society accepts as valid are untimed and unsupervised...meaning that the speed at which a person calculates and reasons things in their mind isn't taken into account...the test that I took was a Stanford-Binet test, which has been the standard for years.
Why do you put so much faith in IQ tests?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
First: IQ test do not measure how smart someone is pass a certain age. It just becomes a knowledge test.
This guy scares me! Wow! Did anyone watch the interview? He said he would like to rule the world. Aiming to enlighten the world I can see but he wants to rule the world.
--
"Any free people have the right to choose how it wants to be govern thats the essence of democracy. It's sad when America has chosen for the stability and consistency of a dictatorship and doing it democratically" -utnow
Gotta keep it in the context of 'smartest man' when it comes to my mentioning 'success'. I didn't mean to sound like I was targeting his career choice. He self-bills himself as having a double life of a bouncer, and a genius. If anything, he's been successful at being a bouncer for 20 years. In the other life he claims to have there are no big successes.
pissing in a sea of piss are we?
It's at least good to know that you're smart enough to laugh at this guy.
Did anybody else notice his assertion regarding his IQ? When he says that it's somewhere between 190 and 210...that's a HUGE margin when you're talking about IQ's folks. The difference between someone with an IQ or 80 and 100 is immense, just as a difference of 130 and 150 is quite significant...Granted I would assume that the margin of difference gets smaller as the IQ gets higher, but 20 points is still a large amount of space to give yourself.
I need to take a look at this "titan test". I've taken a real IQ test that was given to me by the state for placement in advanced courses and it was nothing like anything that I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else that people are taking supposed IQ tests.
edit: okay yeah, I looked into it...the tests that the Mega society accepts as valid are untimed and unsupervised...meaning that the speed at which a person calculates and reasons things in their mind isn't taken into account...the test that I took was a Stanford-Binet test, which has been the standard for years.
Why do you put so much faith in IQ tests?
I'm not sure what you mean by faith.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm not sure what you mean by faith.
I think that they can be a good way of finding the general area of the intelligence spectrum that a person lies...I think that most people would agree with that statement if you're talking about reputable IQ tests, not the bullshit ones that you can take on the internet. Do I think that it's a terribly important thing that all people get IQ tests? certainly not...but I do believe that when it comes to advanced placement and things of that nature for academia, that they are invaluable....a person can fake it in an interview if they know the right things to say...that doesn't really make them intelligent though. You can't really fool a Stanford-Binet test because it's supervised and timed...everything that you do is taken into account (and the test is administered by a trained professional)...and with such a broad spectrum of things that could be tested, it's very difficult to fake it.
How exactly does the Stanford-Binet test measure intelligence? Why don't any universities use IQ tests for placement of students?
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.