An Interview with Shalom Dickson on Background and High-IQ (Part One)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/08/01

Abstract

Shalom Dickson is a Member of the Glia Society. His biography on his website states, “Shalom Dickson is a fundamental thinker with interests in cognition, philosophy, sociology, innovation-powered entrepreneurship, and ethical science. His friends regard him as a visionary with a knack for purpose-driven leadership. He is the founder of internovent, Nigeria’s first social innovation company designing solutions for developing nations to attain a balanced global socioeconomic advancement. One of these is Paperloops, Nigeria’s first FinTech company offering holistic financial management and literacy for teens. He is also the founding president of Novus Mentis, Nigeria’s first high-intelligence network with a mission to Map-out Nigeria’s Brain for optimized creative output. Novus Mentis has launched the Sound Mind Project to optimize cognitive ability and stimulate intellectual interest in Africa. Shalom is Nigeria’s first member of the exclusive Glia Society and an alumnus of Nigeria’s first cohort of the Founder Institute.” You can see more here. He discusses: growing up; an extended self; family background; experience with peers and schoolmates; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; geniuses; the greatest geniuses in history; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; some work experiences and educational certifications; important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses; some social and political views; the God concept; science; the tests taken and scores earned; the range of the scores; and ethical philosophy.

Keywords: background, family, high-IQ, Nigeria, Paul Cooijmans, Shalom Dickson.

An Interview with Shalom Dickson on Background and High-IQ (Part One)[1]^,[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?

Shalom Dickson: Oh, there were stories. Of royalty, excellence, and influence. Some of those I found particularly exciting involved a great-grandfather who was a warrior, ruler, and healer who was known for delivering babies via cesarean section.

2. Jacobsen: Have these stores helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?

Dickson: Primarily, learning about my ancestors in such a manner inspired a rather spiritual sense of connectedness. There are likely other effects, perhaps in the domain of self-esteem, that I have taken for granted. I was inspired by the work my father did. A master of many, he had a background in medicine but developed himself in engineering, manufacturing, and business. Retrospectively, this provided me with a rather broad view of possibility, which included a flexible limitation on what one person could achieve through ingenuity and hard work. I have now resolved that the two most important ingredients for inspiring purposeful ambition in children are to expand their perspective on what is possible and then to provide them with an immediate means to exercise their will. One should basically say, “this is the map of the continent, and here is a bicycle.”

3. Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?

Dickson: My parents are from the Yoruba ‘tribe’ of south-western Nigeria. The ethnic diversity within this group is, yet, so great that one would have to mention the specific town to paint an accurate picture of the culture=language+food+dressing. Although my birth certificate says Lagos, Nigeria, I spent most of my earlier years without much influence from that culture, living in neighboring Cameroon until before my 7th birthday, when we moved to south-eastern Nigeria, a distinct cluster of ethnicities. Even if I had spent all of the initial years in Lagos, that would have mostly exposed me to the more generalized variant of the Yoruba culture. In any case, the academic language was ‘English’, while the unofficial language was the local pidgin. Growing up under such dynamic cultural conditions must have largely contributed to the ethnic dissociation that characterizes my identity.

My home was a strictly Pentecostal Christian one. I was raised with a solid education in scripture and doctrine. My first public speaking engagement was a sermon in the large adult auditorium on a certain children’s day event. The first book I read extensively and evaluated critically was the Bible. But I was largely autonomous in Faith, never quite having my spiritual identity enveloped in some religious organization. My father, a religious leader, often criticized practices that were at odds with Christianity’s original derivative of the Bible. I engaged in a lot of church activities from singing and drama to preaching, usually in a leadership capacity, but my orientation was that of a reformer. And this rebellious tendency eventually led me to a markedly unconventional spiritual inclination. One of my earlier ‘SMH’ moments in reaction to religious irrationality was when a teacher went from prescribing respect for the religious independence of others to, practically, granting exclusive proliferation rights to Christianity in the same breath because, as she retrieved, the Bible commands thus.

4. Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?

Dickson: For the exact reasons, I had very pleasant and unpleasant experiences. But I am hedonically economical and have always not expected to derive much excitement from social interactions. As such, I managed an independent development, was often preoccupied with creative endeavors, and got by with a couple of friends per time. One could still consider my life as a series of personal and collaborative projects.

My mother claims that I was speaking meaningfully at 10 months. I remember some of our earliest conversations but nothing that must have been from before marking year 1. My reading, however, was a painful process until later, as I interpreted symbols in a rather primitive way. (Interestingly, the solution to the intellectual challenges arising from this peculiarity was to read faster, not slower, as I learned rather late.) I started school early and skipped a couple of grades so that I was 6 years old finishing primary 4. This set me 2 – 4 years away from my age mates. The outcome was not sufficiently challenging, as I still topped all the classes up till that point. I remember it being rumored by teachers that I was the best performing student in a certain test in the entire school. I later realized this must have been some aptitude test. I think acceleration, not merely grade-skipping, is what would have worked.

As I grew older, school became increasingly counter-constructive. I had endured the preliminary science presentations in junior secondary school, hoping to begin ‘real science’ in the senior phase. I was greatly disappointed that the material was nothing like those in the books I had been busying with. In any case, school was never satisfying. One of the moments that highlight my frustration was when, in primary school, I listed in an answer about “respecting leaders”, “age should not be considered when respecting a leader”. The teacher, in her infinite wisdom, ‘corrected’ my statement as “a leader should be respected regardless of age”. The logical error was highly troubling. It is disastrous that one should be educated under such circumstances.

A series of events greatly deviated my interests from classwork and, eventually, my performance – when studying, however minimal, became necessary. These events, largely as a result of relocation, cost me 2 years so that I would graduate secondary school at a more relatable age of 16. During this period, I wore every color on the academic performance spectrum, the least stellar ones more frequent in the last 3 years of secondary schooling. As a result, I happened on quite a range of experiences with my schoolteachers – sometimes during the same period, scattered across classes. Although I maintained a steady dose of brilliant friends teachers in my history tend to have a very emotional reaction to results, but for one. The head economics teacher, not in charge of my class, who talent-hunted me for a creative project and, disappointed by my average score sheet balance, thereafter insisted I reflected my abilities in my test results. The outcome was an A+ within 2 weeks, the only one I earned in senior secondary school. I received several conflicting, ultimately unhelpful career advice from teachers who noted core competences in their areas of interest.

5. Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?

Dickson: One may begin to think about intelligence tests as some means to evaluate a person’s mental abilities compared to the human capacity for reasoning and other features of cognition. This anthropocentric notion of intelligence is useful in as much as one merely considers it as a tool for functioning in human societies, and to this degree, cognitive ability testing has been successful! The immediate limitation of this view is that other human features are useful for social functioning but are not intelligence although they co-operate it; for example, sensing. Another problem is that we may not readily acknowledge intelligence in other systems whose ‘cognitive’ architectures are markedly dissimilar to ours, especially if they do not share our interests. This knowledge is useful in our development of artificial general intelligence and our interactions with other life forms. Although one may say they are comfortable with not knowing much about non-human representations of it, one human-concerning implication is that if we cannot identify intelligence in others, we do not distinguish it accurately in ourselves.

We have now returned to a question some may have already asked in the first line: why should we care about measuring intelligence at all? The benefits of intelligence are numerous, and I find them appreciable even to those who are reprehensive of the idea itself. Social functioning is a mere by-product of the fundamental usefulness, and one only finds a limit to the use of intelligence when they assume that social functioning is its alpha and omega. And even then, the idea of the diminishing returns is misguided; Society fails at positioning intelligent people optimally, and so some will naturally not be able to apply their abilities. The root property is the capacity for problem-solving, of which the primary use is reality configuration. As long as there are problems to solve, one cannot find any level of intelligence to be an excess. The problem of ability positioning is itself a problem requiring intelligence, but if one must solve it for oneself, it requires drive and self-discipline as well. Deficiency in one area does not equate to insufficiency in the other. Another reason for the apparent diminishing returns is that our current tests may not measure the same thing for everyone as they detect only the outcomes and not the thinking processes, including what facts are used. In any case, we care about measuring intelligence because we care about problems and solubility. High-range cognitive ability tests are a good way to source members for projects with a high intellectual requirement.

6. Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?

Dickson: It became obvious to me soon enough during childhood that there were differences in reasoning ability among people, and that this could lead one—even as a child—to arrive at conclusions that others, as adults, could not achieve or found incredible. At school, beyond score sheets, it was clear that some people had a better grasp of the material than others, although one principal would try to convince us that “everybody’s brain is the same,” in the name of science. However, it was only much later – close to adulthood – that I became familiar with the scientific study of intelligence and a possible “high IQ”.

7. Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.

Dickson: Geniuses generally differ from experts in the nature of their mastery. While the latter may master trends and techniques, the former master fundamental principles. The works of geniuses in any field stem from thinking processes which are beneath the conventions of the field. Hence, the implications of these works can be applied to various areas, only being adopted according to convenience.

One can visualize the situation thus: The entirety of knowledge are represented as patterns in a space. There are odd patterns – uncharted territory – and even patterns. The goal of a genius is mastering odd patterns, which may eventually be adapted into the even patterns. When the work of a genius is found useful to the current trends of pattern expansion, they are praised. When not, all that is seen is the absurdity of oddity. As such, they are treated with hostility.

8. Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?

Dickson: I do not have an exact candidate at this moment because I would want to be right in such an evaluation, but the image in my head is somewhat Goethesque. I am particularly attracted to the universal thinker and polymath types. Of course, the archetypal Renaissance man – Leonardo da Vinci – comes to mind as well. My favorite, however, is Einstein, because our personalities, epistemic structures, and worldviews seem to align the most (coincidentally, I was nicknamed Einstein in my A’ level school, and I embraced it for that deeper connection I had extracted we shared). Well, Einstein himself is reported to have owned 50 volumes of Goethe literature in his library.

9. Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?

Dickson: Profound giftedness is a categorization based on the observation that people, especially obvious in children, of certain IQ levels and above tend to share markedly distinct characteristics, even among intelligent people. Such individuals are regarded as geniuses in popular culture, but without much luck, as the test of time turn out no remarkable creation for most of them, and one would find questions like, “I have an IQ of [something high]. Why don’t I feel like a genius?” on internet fora.

A genius, on the other hand, is a person of truly original creative expression. Optionally, one could leave the job to history’s selectivity to determine such individuals. But this requires that the works are found relevant by a community, having at least some implications that are not incredibly advanced. If the relevance of one’s work is not within sight, it cannot be known whether they are “ahead of their time” or simply not on the timeline. A perfect definition of genius must cater to such ones onto whom the angel of fame may not cast her torchlight, even posthumously. Beyond poetics, though, I must not speak of such a model of genius without referring you to the efficient work of Paul Cooijmans. He has identified, interacting in synergy, three factors; to wit, intelligence, conscientiousness, and associative horizon. An insight I had was that these factors are high-level representations of fundamental elements of existence. Geniuses ‘maximize’ these elements in varying proportions.

10. Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and educational certifications for you?

Dickson: I have worked in quite a few areas including teaching (physics and English), marketing, research, product design, content development, academic consulting, and management. More recently, I briefly had an interesting role in a top technical talent development institute where I experimented with high-range cognitive ability testing as means for screening candidates. I soon returned to face my entrepreneurial ambitions, launching a startup via the Lagos chapter of the Founder Institute, the world’s largest pre-seed accelerator, as a project under internovent – an organization dedicated to developing solutions of socioeconomic importance.

My last academic certification was the Cambridge International General Certificate of Education: Advanced Level, a pre-university education certificate. A notable feature in my career is that I often received job offers without sending in applications. As such, I have not had to compete with candidates on the basis of certification. A side effect, however, is that I get asked the question about why I did not pursue a university degree a lot.

11. Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?

Dickson: If one holds strict presumptions about how genius should appear, it may not be easily recognized in people who come from certain groups or whose works are applied to certain fields. Many Hollywood movies operating on the supposed tie between genius and IQ usually fail on two counts: in the representing thinking and decision theories at certain intelligence levels (sometimes favoring complicated solutions), and in expressing the true characteristics of geniuses. Some, however, do these excellently. Meanwhile, the British series, Sherlock, is my favorite show, in this regard; it exaggerates in just the right places.

One can be a genius and pass for a crackpot at the same time. This is in part due to the unconventional, autodidact nature of their learning, the effects being more pronounced in some than others. There are no ‘artistic geniuses’ or ‘philosophical geniuses’. There are just specialist masters and savants who may or may not be geniuses. Any perceived humility is an accidental property, and it is not true that ‘real geniuses’ are humble. In fact, without intellectual audacity (often treated as arrogance), no great knowledge can be unraveled. Geniuses abhor mediocrity; and this is a useful trait for exceptional productions.

12. Jacobsen: What are some social and political views for you? Why hold them?

Dickson: Here are some of my ruminations on society and politics:

For an individual living in solitude all their life, all their decisions are based on their preferences; the possibility of a successor who arrives posthumously introduces reasons to adjust his preferences slightly, one roommate adds a constraining factor to the individual’s activities but provides new possibilities for mutual actions; but many interesting features of society begin to emerge when we introduce a third roommate. They begin to make decisions not only based on mutual preferences but assumptions about the preferences of others – to fill gaps in their knowledge. A social culture soon emerges, in a large part, from the conference of such assumptions, appointing the group a mind of its own, even with tendencies towards actions and beliefs that are at odds with the wishes of each member. The group can be improved to reflect the values of the members by increasing its metacognition = the members’ awareness of the group dynamics – through communication. A notable effect in this model is that the least conforming individuals with strong ideas are more likely to influence the society. The timescale for the materialization of their influence is a function of relevance to change.

We can consider supersociety, a system of such smaller societies. Ours has a particularly interesting feature called mortality. People start things they cannot finish, inherit assumptions they did not make, contribute to the fostering of ideals they do not hold. Individual intentions seem like mere excuses for the fulfillment of the grand scheme of humanity. There is a deeper, spiritual sense of interconnectedness beneath physical interaction, bearing the flow of ideas.

I find interesting, the epistemic evolution of supersociety. Given that humans continue to exist in some form, the one consistent feature over time, even between periods of regression, should be an advancement in knowledge. Following this thought, my vision for humanity is the inevitable existence, at some point in its future, of a societal state termed a Transgressive Equilibrium. Such a society, having attained mastery of reality configuration (including reality simulation capabilities), can know all it needs to know and do all it wishes to do, resulting in an optimal complex of economy and culture. Our current level of being and humanness is just a phase in the course of the cosmic drive for self-understanding, as we may extrapolate from the learning patterns of society. At individual and at the species level, in cognition, the experience of entities are bound by the Curse of Nonrecognition: intelligent entities recognize intelligibility within this boundary of sense-ness, even though they are present in the larger environment. Owing to our capacity for communication and metacognition, our emergent entity – Humanity – is able to overcome the Curse of Nonrecognition via the following mechanism:

• A single to a few humans reach some original insight.
• A group of experts develops an understanding around this, growing the body of knowledge in their field.
• Society finds usefulness in the application of such knowledge, and a growing number of people live in a world enhanced by such applications.
• This improves the quality of common knowledge and more people are capable of understanding future insights.

Thus, the sphere of recognition expands for Humanity over generations.

A beneficial political arrangement for progress optimizes for vision and integrity in elected leaders, surrounded by people of high ability. Societies with elements of democracy are the only ones where we can negotiate our social preferences fairly. Ones where the capacity for sound judgment in the people is prioritized are the only ones where we can extract the full benefits of democracy. Capable individuals are more likely to make decisions that matter over a broad range of circumstances. The whole progress when the individual is optimally positioned for ability. Many sociopolitical problems are rooted in inefficient talent configuration; this is the primary problem upon whose solution all others are defined. Particularly, many of the inefficiencies of developing societies such as Nigeria are based on the problem of arrangement and not content, and the more complex the required arrangement, the probability that one arrives there by chance reduces, despite having the right ingredients. Within the scope of my intervention activities are schemes to Map-out Nigeria’s Brain, and to inspire an intellectual culture.

On groups, I think a considerable proportion of social tensions in modern society is based on false group identities; a futile attempt to force biologic or genetic groups into social groups (i.e. systems) with a shared purpose and a common reality. Social systems are formed on the bases of family, friendship, and socioeconomic interests. Particularly, groups solely based on gender and race cannot achieve the unity they seek to. Even though they face common struggles, we cannot consider them as isolated victim groups. We can compare this to a football team versus an ‘Association of Goalkeepers’. No progress will come from demonstrations about the tribulations of goalkeepers at the hand (or feet) of strikers, because when all is said and done, the goalkeepers must return to their teams, to which they are functionally loyal. Productive change can only come from addressing the disadvantages embedded in the rules of the game, and by renegotiating the social contract.

Racism is elusive. To the extent that it truly exists, we cannot extinguish it. To the extent that we find cheap actions to extinguish, they are likely not going to eliminate racism. For many, it is a fact that there are individuals who are prejudiced against certain racial groups. But since we cannot exactly crucify anyone for thinking ‘racist thoughts’, we resort to attack those who treat others unjustly. However, we are unable to prove intent from observing actions, and injustice exists within racial groups. Hence, we have one set of people who painfully express their experience of oppression and others who simply do not see it. Trying to establish the facts of racism is useful, and it is a justified sentiment. Yet, there are tradeoffs, so that the optimal strategy is to treat injustice as injustice in general, and motivations as individual cases. However painful it is, injustice should not be called anything else but its already ignoble name, unless specifically implied by the action.

These are some of the views through which I make the most sense of the world.

13. Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?

Dickson: The God-question is treated simplistically as a binary problem, requiring a YES-or-NO answer. In general, atheists would like to think they have an obvious NO, whereas theists should believe that they have arrived at a compelling YES. In reality, though, most of the theists have simply adopted a convenient response, while the atheists have abandoned the question. Meanwhile, it is not true that God is merely an invention of man whereby the inventor bears the burden of proof. The three fundamental questions, WHAT, HOW, and WHY applied to reality, implies a God-problem that must be solved. There is a God-question for every level of intelligence and awareness. The answer to this question becomes more abstract and more sophisticated along the dimensions respectively. A point of contention may be over how much abstraction the concept can bear while retaining its meaning. At a stage, it all becomes a matter of linguistic gymnastics.

The majority of people are incapable of evaluating the God-question intelligently, and as such, must approach it animalistically; in terms of their survival. Luckily for this majority, the software of religion is built on the framework of belief and make-belief. Intelligence is only rewarded in religion as much as it can help rationalize irrationality. There is great room for ‘intellectricks’ within religions, and while some of the tenets of Faith are sublime, the case that “religion is good; the problem is with the people”, is no different than saying “fire is good; the problem is with the heat”. The only genuine way to approach theology is to subject the ideas to intellectual rigor, without making any disingenuous claims to a monopoly on true interpretation.

On the subject of revelation, that which is not subject to reason must have no consequence on the rules of physical interactions. Jesus is quoted to have said, “I speak to you of earthly things and you do not understand, how then could you understand of heavenly things?” An interesting fact about this statement, apart from the obvious effects of the distinction between heavenly and earthly things, is that what he considered an earthly thing was the process of salvation. I wonder how many Christians understand the implication of this idea because it does not reflect much in the demonstrations of their common thinking that they do.

The problems with the Big Questions is that they are easy to ask at this point, where everyone may have adopted the confusion templates from various cultures, but difficult to recognize answers for. For instance, to a popular dilemma in my childhood, asking, “if God created the world, who created God?”, I once suggested that the universe created God and he went back in time to create the universe. As one can imagine, this suggestion was met with great hostility. The crux here is not whether the idea is true or not, but that the discussants were incapable of dealing with that level of perplexity. Some people are able to recognize powerful ideas, however raw, regardless of the source, while others must be spoon-fed from the premastications of authority. Traditional education has failed to deliver on its promise to improve this condition beyond a point.

14. Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?

Dickson: The principles and ideals of science form one part of the most prominent influences on my approach to knowledge and learning, although one can see how scientific movements may degrade into a state no better driven by rationality than religion. Since childhood, I always formed internal representations of information using an intuitive approximation of the scientific method, with lots of induction and abduction. On the other hand, my intellectual dynamic is characterized by a deep prescientific, philosophical experience, which is both analytic and poetic. I eventually address matters using the kind of thinking with which I can extract the most meaningful interpretations. Fundamentally, I consider my approach as adisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary. It is upon this that selected thinkings may be developed as found necessary in such cases.

15. Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?

Dickson: Expressed in a standard deviation of 15, my initial scores on experimental high-range intelligence tests, which are untimed and unsupervised, were within the 140-to-160 range on tests by Jason Betts and one other author. I have now learned that one ought to spend up to 10 times more time than I have on those tests to perform maximally. This makes me wonder what the difficulty-validity relationship is on tests of advanced cognitive ability.

I have never been tested by a psychologist on conventional tests. However, I hit the ceiling score on a version of Raven’s matrices taken unofficially years ago.

16. Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.

Dickson: My initial experience with Paul Cooijmans’ tests was like an electric shock, with scores lower than my previous low. I cannot go into many details on the situation except to say that I have overcome the curses now. I look forward to enjoying more of the problems.

I think all new candidates of high-range tests should know that if there is any task they had to exert their thinking on to the highest degree, this, by definition, should be it. I have wasted beautiful tests not realizing these things, underestimating how much ‘intelligons’ were needed to be captured. It is impossible to cheat by spending time, and as long as one does not cheat, they cannot overperform (one may only ‘overperform’ if the problems are biased towards their area of educational training). One should think most responsibly about their participation in the testing, as there is no point if it is not handled appropriately.

17. Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Dickson: I find Kantian ethics to be rather intuitive. One is to note, however, that the “rational being” in the categorical imperative is not necessarily a human being. It is questionable whether humans are rational beings at all, and unquestionable that not all humans are equally rational. Thus, ethics cannot be objective if it is optimized for ‘human’ morality. This is a key reason for the numerous perspectives on the subject, where one can find them to be different attempts at the same thing. With enough reason and less selfishness, every ethical theory at its best corresponds to ‘utilitarianism within one’s power’. The ultimate ethical framework must contain a solution to the question, what is the purpose of humanity?

To think clearly about ethics, I find it useful to consider what feature of humanness raises the matter of rightness in the first place. If an ethical theory is an attempt to do that which is right, then, it has requirements in the departments of intelligence – of the ability to know what is right (a truth), and consciousness – of the will to act how it’s right. Thus, a highly intelligent being can decide what is right, regardless of their inclination to execute it; while a highly conscientious being can act in some supposedly right manner, needing not to figure it out for themselves. Intelligence offers the capacity for induction, enabling the manipulation of more complex scenarios involving more time, space, and particles. Consequently, considering scales, ethical theories must be based on the preferences of the most intelligent (and rational) beings whose decisions may make little sense to the ignorant in the short-term (in contrast to Asimov’s laws of robotics); while advancement in knowledge and must be encouraged as this improves the capacity to execute ethical resolves. Humans, in today’s sense, are simply an approximation of such a being, the true Homo epistemicus; the citizens of a Transgressive Equilibrium.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Member, Glia Society.

[2] Individual Publication Date: August 1, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/dickson-one; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. 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 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.