Ask Two Geniuses with Dr. Christian Sorensen and Matthew Scillitani on Genius, Mental Health, and Relationships: Independent Metaphysician & Philosopher; Social Media Marketer & Web Developer (1)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

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

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/01/01

Abstract

Rick Rosner and I conduct a conversational series entitled Ask A Genius on a variety of subjects through In-Sight Publishing on the personal and professional website for Rick. This series with Christian and Matthew build on this idea. Dr. Christian Sorensen earned a score at 185+, i.e., at least 186, on the WAIS-R. He is an expert in Metaphysics and Philosophy. Matthew Scillitani earned a score at 190, on Psychometric Qrosswords. He is an expert in Social Media Marketing and Web Development. Both scores on a standard deviation of 15. A sigma of ~5.67+ for Christian – a general intelligence rarity of more than 1 in 136,975,305, at least 1 in 202,496,482 – and a sigma of 6.00 for Matt – a general intelligence rarity of 1 in 1,009,976,678. Neither splitting hairs nor a competition here; we agreed to a discussion, hopefully, for the edification of the audience here. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population. This amounts to a joint interview or conversation with Dr. Christian Sorensen, Matthew Scillitani, and myself. They discuss: mental wellness and mental illness; a youth from an adult; a prodigy from a genius; a reasonable point at which to separate an early bloomer from a late bloomer; psychiatric conditions in relation to genius; genius, dating, friendships, love, and marriage; intelligence from IQ; parts of IQ with intelligence; and desired directions for this meta-analytic discussion.

Keywords: Christian Sorensen, genius, Matthew Scillitani, mental health, relationships.

Ask Two Geniuses with Dr. Christian Sorensen and Matthew Scillitani on Genius, Mental Health, and Relationships: Independent Metaphysician & Philosopher; Social Media Marketer & Web Developer (1)

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

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Some interviewees prefer short, open-ended questions. Other interviewees prefer long prefaces punctuated by a question or a series of questions. Sorry to any readers present or future who happen to read some of the works here or elsewhere, sincerely and gently, with particular preferences in reading kinds and forms of questions, the materials can restrict or constrain some of the reading due to a number of factors. Some relate to the preference of the interviewee or interviewees. Others may have a relationship with the coda statements seemingly requisite to move onto the next part of the interview or to make a final statement about this or that particular topic. So on and so forth, nonetheless, this series, probably, will commit to an admixture of them. Our subject matter, in general, for this mediated discussion are intelligence, IQ, mental wellness, mental illness, youth and adults, prodigy and genius, early bloomers and late bloomers, psychiatric disorders tied to genius, relationships (friendship, dating, and marriage) and genius, while within a ‘deep dive’ or a meta-analytic framework of comprehension. To begin, let’s get some personal opinions or individual definitions of the above categories before moving into the more formal discussion and then trying to bring everything under the same roof, what are mental wellness and mental illness to you?

Dr. Christian Sorensen[1]*: Both, mental wellness and mental illness, from my point of view, are relative and variable categories, since they respectively depend on temporal circumstances, and they are metamorphoseable nomenclatures. In turn, it could be stated, that these are definable, from a perspective, that I will denominate of introjection and of extra introjection, depending on whether it is done, from what I’m going to name, the consciousness of illness, or whether it is effectuated, from an external objectifying typification.

Matthew Scillitani[2],[3]*: Mental wellness is, to me, more than just the absence of psychiatric disorders or peace of mind or whatever. It’s the ability to temper one’s emotions, be productive, mature, ethical, and rational, regardless of the presence of psychiatric disorders. We have all met someone who, in spite of not having any obvious psychiatric conditions, was lazy, unethical, immature, and so on; so the absence of psychiatric disorders and stress does not mean the person is mentally well.

In contrast, mental illness can be marked as the inability to rationalize well, the presence of delusions, laziness, melancholy, low stress-resistance, a weak ego, immaturity, et cetera. Actually, it’s probably that a weak ego is responsible for all of those things in the first place. I’ve noticed that many people who are mentally unwell seem to have a weak ego, which causes them to be more prone to disturbance and prolonged cognitive dissonance, which is extremely bad for one’s mental health.

Jacobsen: What differentiates a youth from an adult?

Sorensen: I think that what differentiates the two of them, is a psychological maturational criterion, that is related to the crystallization of the personality structure, particularly, with regard to the formation, of the identity of the self, and from an ethical point of view, with the capacity of moral judgement, for assuming responsibility, in relation to one’s own individual acts, which specifically refers, to the ability to make proper use of personal freedom, in terms of being able, to act in accordance with pre-established social norms, and therefore, to be capable to cognitively understand, the relationship that exists between rights and duties, both in the private and public spheres.

Scillitani: Biologically, probably just puberty. Psychologically, that is a hard question to answer. We cannot say it is rationality, or intelligence, or emotional maturity, or stress-resistance, or anything else because there are adults who have none of those things and some precocious children who have some or all of them. In an ideal world, all children would grow into smart, ethical, productive, satisfied adults who can live their lives effectively without the aid of others.

Jacobsen: What differentiates a prodigy from a genius?

Sorensen: A prodigy, is a precocious child in a certain field, who also dominates it, although this area, has already been invented. While a genius, is someone who manages to revolutionize, a certain sphere of ​​knowledge.

Scillitani: Well, most prodigies are children who have committed thousands of hours towards practicing a learnable skill, like piano or mental math. These are things that are impressive but don’t require much intelligence to do. After all, a child can do them! A genius is someone, usually an adult, though there are a few cases of teenage geniuses, who are exceptionally intelligent, talented in their fields of study, and who, like the prodigy, commit thousands of hours towards their work. Many pianists can play Beethoven flawlessly, but only Beethoven was the genius for having written his music into existence. That is a genius. The prodigy can just play well.

Jacobsen: What seems like a reasonable point at which to separate an early bloomer from a late bloomer?

Sorensen: I think that what separates an early bloomer from a late bloomer, is the existential fact for a genius, of becoming aware about death, and therefore, of stop thinking that he is living life, and rather begin to think, about how long he will live.

Scillitani: Probably mid-puberty would be a good time to determine that. If a child is very precocious but they fizzle down to normal as a teenager then they were an early bloomer and if a child is behind their classmates but catches up sometime during puberty then they were a late bloomer. It may even be that a child is an early bloomer in some areas and a late bloomer in others. For a personal example, I was a very strong reader from an early age but was weak in math and couldn’t understand it no matter how hard I tried. Then, in high school, math was suddenly very easy to comprehend and I skipped four math grades!

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on more formal, precise psychiatric conditions in relation to genius?

Sorensen: I think that in general, in relation to genius, there are certain psychiatric patterns, that tend to repeat, especially in what concern, schizoaffective and mood troubles, which can manifest themselves, in a wide spectrum, ranging from personality disorders to psychotic syndromes.

Scillitani: O.C.D. (obsessive-compulsive disorder), O.C.P.D. (obsessive-compulsive personality disorder), Asperger Syndrome, Schizophrenia, A.S.P.D. (antisocial personality disorder), depression, and paraphilia are all related to genius. Psychiatric disorders are probably a requisite for genius, and the most common disorder held by nearly all geniuses is Asperger Syndrome. It seems that depression and sexual deviance are also common if not a requisite for genius. In the arts, like music and painting, schizophrenia is also very common, but less so in the sciences.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on genius, dating, friendships, love, and marriage relevant for the upcoming extended conversation?

Sorensen: I think of -1, since genius, dating, friendships, love, and marriage, not only strongly intersect between themselves, but also they interact each other, perfectly, nevertheless they do so, by an absolutely reverse way.

Scillitani: Most geniuses never marry, never have children, and have few or no friends, probably because of psychosocial problems related to psychiatric disorders like Asperger Syndrome and Schizophrenia. Some geniuses are lucky and manage to find a romantic partner but it’s very rare. The genius is usually also introverted and not interested in socializing anyway, preferring to live in his own world and focus his attention on his hobbies and work, which he excels in.

Jacobsen: What separates intelligence from IQ?

Sorensen: Everything separates them, since the IQ is not only a consensual unit of measurement, that represents intelligence, in my opinion, as a partial and relative reality which never hits the bottom, but also because both are essentially different, due to the fact, that they have natures, which in addition to being asymmetrical, they are besides, opposite between each other, since while the IQ, is always procedurally discursive, intelligence never is, and respectively, if reads reality, then the other does so, but instantly from its inside, without conjugating any sign.

Scillitani: Intelligence is a quality and I.Q. tests are a measuring tool. The challenge is that intelligence is much harder to precisely measure because it’s not as clear-cut as just putting a yardstick next to an object to measure height or something. What makes it even more difficult is that idiots can’t recognize high intelligence, and many of them decide to enter the field of psychology because it has almost no barrier for entry. So now we have many psychologists trying to measure intelligence but are not intelligent themselves, which results in less satisfactory measurement tools.

Jacobsen: What equates parts of IQ with intelligence?

Sorensen: There are no equitable parts between one and the other, since what exists, is rather a noetic analogy, in which through IQ, intelligence, is simply and reductively defined, as an ability to solve problems, in function, of different degrees of complexity, and lastly what the term of IQ signifies, refers to who defined it, since the very first time, that is to say, to what means a metric value, measured by certain refutable instruments.

Scillitani: I.Q. is a pretty good reflection of one’s intelligence when the test taken has high-quality items, is heterogeneous, and has a high g-loading, with a generous ceiling (and floor, in some cases) to allow for outliers.

Jacobsen: Any particular desired directions for this meta-analytic discussion on these subject matters or points to bear in mind as the conversation continues?

Sorensen: In relation to the term that I proposed, of meta-analysis, and regarding these subject matters, I would follow, an increasingly abstract direction, until getting to nothingness, in order to screen every detail, and fully discern the qualitative aspects of each one of them, since in that manner I would start castling the concept of metaphysics, with another one, that I will denominate meta-philosophy.

Scillitani: Sure. A good and relevant topic would be on the differences (if any) between the universal genius and the more niche genius, who is exceptional at one or two subjects but average or even bad at others. Does the latter even exist? If so, are they still a genius or something else entirely? We could also talk about the physical characteristics of the genius. For example, it’s sometimes said that the genius may have a larger head circumference relative to their body. Perhaps there is some truth to this?

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Metaphysician and Philosopher.

[2]Member, Giga Society.

[3] Individual Publication Date: January 1, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-scillitani-1; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

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.