Skip to content

An interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two)


Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 11.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Seven)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain:

Individual Publication Date: June 8, 2016

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2016

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 3,357

ISSN 2369-6885


An interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc. He discusses: reasonable considerations of intelligence tests; advantages of online tests; disadvantages of online tests; pitfalls in measurement of intelligence and creation of intelligence tests; strengths and weaknesses of culture fair intelligence tests; definition of general intelligence; most reasonable other positions; personal hopes for high-IQ sub-population; hoped for accomplishment of IQ tests and the World Genius Directory; suffered canards of geniuses and reflection in personal and social experience; common attributes that demarcate geniuses; common characteristics among geniuses; things wrong with portrayals of geniuses in books, televisions, movies, and journalism; Internet’s alteration to the high-IQ landscape; possibility to increase IQ, intelligence, or both; and ways this might occur.

Keywords: intelligence, intelligence tests, IQ, geniuses, Jason Betts, World Genius Directory.

An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two)[1],[2],[3],[4]

*Footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

9. Criticism exists around online intelligence tests, especially high-range online intelligence tests. Mainstream standardized general intelligence tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM), or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB-5) tend not to garner criticism.

Major differences exist between the two. Mainstream intelligence tests work within the reasonable extrapolations of the normal range of the bell curve, have a high sample size, implement time limits, and require professional supervision, to name a few.

Online high-range intelligence tests work within the upper limits of reasonable bell curve sigmas at 4 to 6, even rarer, standard deviations, have low self-selected sample sizes, do not implement time limits – except, maybe, suggested limits, and do not require professional supervision, to name another related few.

Fault-finding toward mainstream intelligence tests might emerge in the form of theoretical critiques of the intelligence quotient (IQ) measurements and its purported complete isomorphism with the concept “intelligence.” Each, the WAIS, RAPM, and SB-5, seem to provide the most accurate intelligence scores. The gold-standard, so to speak.

For instance, as noted, four standard deviations remains the highest reasonable extrapolation for them. A standard deviation of 15, 16, or 24, would produce a positive four standard deviation intelligence test score of 160, 164, and 196, respectively. Statistical analysis dictates a theoretical rarity of 1 in 30,000 people. Any further reduces the possible sample from the population. America, for one example, contains an estimated 322,000,000 people.[5]

322,000,000/30,000 comes out to ~10,733.[6] In the United States, which seems to utilize 16 as its standard deviation, this would leave about 11,000 individuals with possible IQ scores of 164 or greater.[7] 11,000 people remains small in terms of the population. Even higher, some minor, and some legitimate, concerns emerge with respect to critiques about online high-range intelligence tests.

Online intelligence tests constructors appear to not have the equivalent resources, staff, and net time. This limits, in theory, their tests’ accuracies in measurement of the highest level of ability, which defines their existence, or purpose, for the most part.

From the theory, this might happen in practice too. Some online high-range tests calculate rarities into one in several million, one in several ten or hundred million, and even one in one/several billion. On face value, this can appear unreasonable. With some of this in mind, what seems like a reasonable consideration of the issue to you?

This is an ongoing issue of high-range IQ testing and also, like many things, always evolving. Not going into history, but things are looking better, in general, as long as some basic rules and regulations are kept. For starters, online testing as we currently know it, i.e. one set test of unchanging questions, is not acceptable as it is easy to cheat by multiple submissions. I am working on a version with dynamic questions (not static), but credit should be given to Marco Ripà whom has created two such tests already – truly, world firsts.

Statistical Deviation = 15 (SD15) seems to be the world standard at the moment for it’s ease of use and fitting into two structural metrics, being Mensa (130 = 100 + 15 + 15) and 15 having a factor of 5 and a semi-factor of 10.

The major point of IQ tests is to test IQ but with two extras: to test the type of intelligence that cannot be tested by standard IQ tests, and to test the range of intelligence that cannot be tested by standard IQ tests. To do this, high-range tests allow unlimited time, such that the answers should not be easily found by research, but only by thinking, and secondly – and most importantly – that no amount of thinking will unlock a specific item – but intelligence will, i.e. for any item, no amount of research nor time (practically, not including exponential experience in a finite lifetime) will reveal the correct answer for a high-range IQ test item. This is a sacrosanct truth that differentiates a difficult test and a high-range one.

10. What advantages come with online tests?[8]

The opportunity to practise doing IQ tests and usually not having to pay money for it. And the opportunity to cheat using frauduent email identities so one can claim a higher (false) score.

11. What disadvantages come with online tests?[9]

Non-accurate results due to low quality test-designs by non-geniuses, over-inflated scores by over-estimation and bad extrapolation of the data, the ability to cheat by multiple test-taking and not being able to use the score to list or join online institutions, such as the World Genius Directory.

12. What exists as some of the pitfalls in the measurement of intelligence and creation of intelligence tests in general?[10]

Not being smart enough, generally. If not that, then wise enough. If not that, then cunning. IQ is a tricky thing, like water; it flows, moves around, is solid, is fluid, has resistance, yet pushes – testing can be tricky, and so must test the force of it’s power, yet the subtlety of it’s elegance, the measure of it’s flow (fluid intelligence) and the structure of it’s firmness and grounding (crystal intelligence), and finally, test the true measure of intelligence – genius! – by way of seeing the unseen, capturing the uncapturable (by normal thinking methods) and knowing the unknowable (with current knowledge and methods). Genius is where it’s at, and IQ tests and measurement is just path and doorway into the doorway of the future of thinking.

13. Intelligence does not equate to quantitative, verbal, or written ability by necessity.[11] These remain variables, proxies. Non-verbal intelligence tests provide the possibility to tap into this for those without formal educational credentials. What strengths and weaknesses come with non-verbal/culture fair intelligence tests?[12]

As stated in the statement previous to the question, non-verbal tests offer those without language skills (either uneducated or without the relevant language or localised knowledge) a way of thinking that is either symmetric, mathematical or aesthetic in nature, and rewards them as such for appreciating it.

NVIT offer a way of expressing mathematical truths in new and interesting ways, open to intepretation and offer new pathways of cognative recognition that can be measured and appreciated. (Sagan: if it can’t be measured, it’s not Science!”) I cannot think of any negative reasons for NVIT other that the instructions, which is why I keep mine (Asterix, Xpwmatrix, Register, etc) to a minimum.

The weakness of NVIT are that they lack the subtlety of verbal language, where words can mean more than one thing, so that a lower IQ will assume one definition and an higher-IQ person will assume other definitions; also, word-play for other languages is a favourite of mine (especially Greek and Latin) as is the use of number of letters, palindromes, anagrams, Spoonerisms and the like. The point is, the smarter the person, the more they will ‘see’ with their mind – the definition of the Latin word ‘intelligere’.

14. What defines general intelligence to you?

‘The ability to see with the mind’, from the Latin.

15. Some intelligence researchers posit a general intelligence, “g.” Others posit a triplet intelligence or multiple intelligences. Of these, or other, positions, what seems the most reasonable?

I created a Theory of Mind of 10 Intelligences, of which I am yet to publish as a book, but do so at: The question is loaded on the definition of ‘reasonable’, which can mean any Occam-thing that makes the most sense at that time. However, I believe there are, by example of the varieties of genius and savant, different types of genius, and thus, intelligence. Modern psychology recognises a differentiation between emotional feelings, higher judgements, basic learnt knowledge, higher rational knowledge and intuitive knowledge/judgements. Even psychic phenomena fit into this empirical schema. The thing is: reason is anything that seems reasonable, so here I will define it thus: a singular intelligence is one where a skill or talent can be describe and measured which is different to another skill or talent in nature.

16. What personal hopes come to heart with respect to the high-IQ sub-population – the highest level of ability?

Dr Jason Betts, Editor/Publisher of the World Genius Directory, will continue to work and act as such, for is long as able, and will continue to advance the field with such advancements as have already been seen and published, leading the field in innovation, education and research.

17. What do you hope to accomplish via creation of IQ tests and the World Genius Directory?[13],[14],[15]

My IQ tests started as experiments, personal testings, of what is intelligence and how one measures it. The WGD came a bit later, personally frustrated at what was available online as a resource for High IQ Societies and lists of tests, &cet. The WGD being a listing of the ‘highest of the high’ was a novel idea for making it interesting, to really see, who was who, and what was what, and how they got there. Many ethical problems had to be solved to create the WGD as it is, being that it has 5,000 unique visitors per month and ten times as many hits (2015 annual figures). Ultimately, the World Genius Directory is a directory for geniuses, those of high intelligence or just those interested in intelligence – it points them to ports of information, testing, help, society and friendship; it lists the famous (or those that desire it, lol) and those that want to be accessible and known as such. It list all of the high-IQ societies, high-IQ tests, publications of our members and even our annual Genius of the Year Awards. It is accomplished, consummatum est.

18. Geniuses suffer from canards, even outright slander, e.g. lack of social skills, inept emotional expression, and poor self-care. Does this reflect personal and social experience to you?

Since my death-experience I have grown and grown and grown. I was 5’10” for 3 years previous and then grew 8 inches over the next 8 years. Last year, I only grew 1cm, and went from 4XL to 5XL shirt, and from Size 11.5 to 12 in shoes, plus another 8kg in body mass. I think it’s fair to say I’m a jolly green giant now. Since my autistic beginnings, university hardships, relationship sufferings, I have survived. Despite everything, I have found love, procreated, loved, and lost. My wife (Wendy) died in 2014 and I have not recovered. I talk to her daily and it is so very hard, that nothing else matters, and every day is either hard or sad, or both. In IQ terms, I have learnt to see people for what they are, to understand what motivates them, and discern what is important and what is not, so that I manage my time and energy wisely – for, after all – that’s ‘all’ we have.

19. What common attributes demarcate geniuses?

LOL. Alienation, usually.

20. Do you find that geniuses typically have characteristics in common, and if so, what are those characteristics?

Intelligence, usually, and sometimes, wit. Trite, but true.

21. What seems wrong with portrayals of geniuses in books, television, movies, and journalism?

Geniuses *are* superheros, no doubt about that; it just seems that those in the media are those that solve really big ‘social’ problems, whereas the common genius (no contradiction) solves non-social, scientific and very-specific problems, such that their light doesn’t shine in the global daynight; however, just as the Earth turns day into night, their glory and glow is noted by those that it affects and is written into those annuls, recorded for the future, to be recognised later for their contribution to humanity’s greatness.

22. How did Internet alter the high-IQ landscape?

It gave people a place to be, as it did many other special interest groups. The internet is wonderful, yet horrible, for those same reasons. Oh, for yesterdecade – bring back the 70s!

23. Insofar as numerous professionals argue about general intelligence, it appears, for the most part, genetic with increasing hereditary influence with more complete development of the organism, e.g. an individual human being’s growth from infant to toddler to adult. However, some argue for the possibility to increase IQ, intelligence, or both. Can people increase their IQ, intelligence, or both to you?

Ha! Seeking to test my Boolean intelligence, I see! So, the answer to the last sentence is yes, to the first part yes, the second part no, and of course, the whole, as yes.

I think IQ can rise by 10% over 10 years if the right factors can come into play; namely, that the IQ is measured correctly in the first year, then many years of brain-training takes place over the concurrent years, and that proper testing takes place at the end, also. I have witnessed many people take my tests from a decade ago and now are ten points higher, slowing fighting the years in a reverse relationship of IQ to year. IQ, strictly speaking, was the relationship of a person’s mental to physical age; nowadays it is the relationship of that person in the statistical population – a much more accurate and meaningful figure.

24. If this can occur to you, how might this occur to you?

Like King Solomon, I hope to awake in an enlightened state, and become filthy rich, revered by men and adored by women. Unlike the same, I will probably work very hard for a very long time and slowly glean away at the reflection of intellectual riches and only hope that – at the end of it all – some kind of final illucidation will arrive and satisfy me.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Abbot, The Order of the Mystic Rose; Member, HOTA High IQ Societies; Member, Helliq Society; Member, Prometheus Society; Member, Australian Mensa; Member, The Triple Nine Society; Member, Australian Psychics Association; Member, Masonic Grand Lodge of Tasmania; Member, Infinity International Society; Member, Triple Nine Society; Member, ISI-Society; Australia’s #1 Distributor (2007), ForeverGreen’s FrequenSea Health Tonic; Owner (2004), Emerald Alchemy, Mail-Order Vitamins, Minerals, Antioxidants; Owner (2000), Taslife Intl, Mail-Order Vitamins, Minerals, Antioxidants; Self Employed (1998), Acupuncture, Massage, Reiki, Nutritional Therapist; High School Teacher (Science/Maths, 1996), Dept. of Education, Tasmania; Editor/Publisher (1995), Tasmania’s Alternative & Natural Therapy Directory; Founder/Organiser (1995), Tasmanian Psychic Expos; Started Teaching Magical Tarot (1993), Numerology and the Hebrew Qabala; Started Reading Playing Cards (1990); Professional Magical Tarot (1992); Member of the Order of Merit (2015), Supreme Council of the Thirty-third Degree; Knight Kadosh Thirtieth Degree (2012), Holy Grail Soverign Chapter, Tasmania; Most Wise Soverign (2012), Holy Sepulchre Soverign Chapter, Tasmania; Knight of St John the Evangelist (2004), Patriarchal Council of Scotland; Knight of Rome and the Red Cross of Constantine (2004), Grand Imperial Council of Scotland; Knight of HRM and the Rosy Cross (2003), Grand Lodge of the Royal Order of Scotland.

[2] Individual Publication Date: June 8, 2016 at; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2016 at

[3] Diploma of Homoeopathy (Dip. Hom, 2001), Medicina Alternativa University (Sri Lanka); Doctor of Philosophy (PhD, 1999), Medicina Alternativa University (Sri Lanka); Registered Marriage Celebrant (1999), Order of the Mystic Rose, Inc. (A4699); Founder/Abbot (1998), Order of the Mystic Rose, Inc. (Tas. #3885); Diploma of Metaphysical Counselling (Dip.MC, 1998), Order of the Mystic Rose (Tasmania); Diploma of Acupuncture (Dip.Ac, 1998), Medicina Alternativa University (Sri Lanka); Certificate of Membership (1998), Acupuncture Foundation of Sri Lanka; Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa, 1997)(DSc), Medicina Alternativa University; Reiki Sensei (Master/Teacher) Certificate (1997), Lee-Anne Bennett (SA); Post Grad. Diploma of Metaphysical Science (Dip.MSc, 1997), Lindlahr College (WA); Bachelor of Science (BSc, 1996), University of Tasmania (Mathematics/Philosophy); Diploma of Remedial Massage (Dip.RM, 1995), Chi-Med College (Tasmania); Certificates in Iridology, Shiatsu and Swedish Massage (1995), Chi-Med College (Tasmania); Advanced Certificate (1992), Usui Method of Reiki Healing; Basic Certificate (1991), Usui Method of Reiki Healing; Certificate (1991), Quantum Dynamics Rebirthing Technique; 30th Degree Freemason; Buddhu Reiki Shihan; Winner (2010), Tasmanian Psychic of the Year, Australian Psychics Association; Winner (2008), Australian Psychic of the Year, Australian Psychic Association; Founder, Tasmanian Psychic Expos; First Principal, Royal Arch Chapter (2003), Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Right Worshipful Master, Mark Lodge (2003), Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Master (2002), Tasmanian Union Craft Lodge, Grand Lodge of Tasmanial; Rites of Druidism (2002), Anglesea Lodge, United Ancient Order of Druids, Victoria; Cross Degrees (2002), Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Knight of the Pelican and Eagle (2001), Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree of Scotland; Royal Master Degree (2001), Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Royal Ark Mariners Degree (2000), Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Royal Arch Degree (1998), Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Grand Lodge Certificate (1996), Grand Lodge of Ancient Free & Accepted Masons of Tasmania; Discoverer (2012), hexagonally symmetrical circles sequence (OEIS A218146); Discoverer, base-prime integer sequences (OEIS A21551, A126359); Founder, Tasmanian Natural Therapy Directory; Editor, World Genius Directory; Editor, IQ Societies List; IQ Test Constructor, Lux25, WIT, Mathema, and Asterix; Creator, Betts Square Arithmetic Tool and Number Representation, The Betts Virtuegrams; 30th Anniversary Psychic Ambassador Award (2013), Australian Psychics Association; Australia’s Top Psychic, ABC TV’s Unbelievable, Episode One; TV Star Psychic (2008), Channel 7’s ‘The One’, Fox Studios Sydney; Founder,; Member, Mensa International.

[4] Images/photographs/portraits/sketches courtesy of Dr. Jason Betts.

[5] United States Census Bureau. (2015). U.S. and World Population Clock. Retrieved from

[6] Ibid.

[7] United States. (2015). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from

[8] human intelligence. (2015). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from

[9] PSIQ. (2015). PSIQ. Retrieved from

[10] Ibid.

[11] human intelligence. (2015). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from

[12] Ibid.

[13] PSIQ. (2015). Bio. Retrieved from

[14] PSIQ. (2015). PSIQ. Retrieved from

[15] PSIQ. (2015). World Genius Directory. Retrieved from

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two) [Online].June 2016; 11(A). Available from:

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2016, June 8). An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two)Retrieved from

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 11.A, June. 2016. <>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2016. “An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 11.A.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 11.A (June 2016).

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2016, ‘An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 11.A. Available from: <>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2016, ‘An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 11.A.,

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part Two).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11.A (2016):June. 2016. Web. <>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Dr. Jason Betts, B.Sc., Dip.M.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc.: Emerald Alchemist (Part One) [Internet]. (2016, June); 11(A). Available from:

License and Copyright


In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

From → Chronology

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: