Conversation with Luca Fiorani on World War II, Geniuses, Philosophies, Meaning, Life, and Love: First Member, RealIQ Society (1)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

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

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2021/01/08

Abstract

Luca Fiorani is the first member of RealIQ Society by Ivan Ivec with an estimated IQ of 181.2 (σ15) combining 9 tests, where he studies and considers himself a philosopher in nuce.  He discusses: some of the prominent family stories being told over time; an extended self; the family background; experience with peers and schoolmates; some professional certifications; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses; the greatest geniuses in history; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; profound intelligence necessary for genius; some work experiences and jobs; job path; the gifted and geniuses; philosophy, theology, and religion; science; some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations); the range of the scores; ethical philosophy; social philosophy; economic philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview-encompassing philosophical system; meaning in life; meaning; an afterlife; the mystery and transience of life; and love.

Keywords: genius, intelligence, IQ, life, love, Luca Fiorani, meaning, philosophy.

Conversation with Luca Fiorani on World War II, Geniuses, Philosophies, Meaning, Life, and Love: First Member, RealIQ Society (1)

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

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

Luca Fiorani[1],[2]*: Back to the origins! I like this approach, it’s interesting. In the past, in its remotest aspects or areas, is perhaps hidden more truth than we usually believe. Family stories? My maternal grandfather was a key-figure. He was one of the Partigiani, The Italian resistance movement which fought against Fascism and Nazism during World War II. His stories were about: bravery, fortitude, daring. ‘Giving up is not an option’ – this maxim summarizes almost everything.

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

Fiorani: Yes, indeed. Cognition of our roots, in my perspective, fortifies our Self – our own perception of inner phenomena and the connection with a milieu; awareness invariably leads to significance.

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

Fiorani: My family lived and lives in Tuscany and Liguria. Its cultural level – firstly in terms of education – has always been medium-high, all things considered. My family traditionally embraces Catholicism, nevertheless not in a too rigid way.

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

Fiorani: I was a loner, as a child and as an adolescent. But I had social skills, and it wasn’t hard for me to make friends. But this happened sporadically. I had tendency for becoming estranged, I cut myself off reality often. I have never been grouchy, but simply I preferred my mind and its simulations to people.

Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?

Fiorani: I’m still studying. I’m still trying to get the proper credentials for achieving something non-negligible in my eventual professional life.

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

Fiorani: Two goals: cognitive assessment and cognitive entertainment. Generally speaking, the first one is the most noble. For instance, a multi-componential analysis of cognitive abilities (as in WISC-IV and V for children, and WAIS-IV for adults) is surely relevant, from a diagnostic point of view as well. It’s not all about ‘IQ’ and a single number there, but also pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the individual. If you detect mental retardation or, conversely, giftedness you may proceed accordingly. The examples made are rather simplistic. I can’t expatiate too much withal.

The ‘cognitive assessment purpose’ can be pursued also through high range IQ tests, if their quality is acceptable. A single result won’t suffice. In order to get a reliable estimate of your IQ you need to take several tests. HRTs are usually untimed, but they can also be timed. The most common and broad fields of high range testing are: verbal, spatial, numerical and mixed/composite. In order to know your IQ, you’ll need a wide spectrum of data. If your aim is exactitude, you’ll need attention to details (stats of the test, norming method, etc.) as well.

It’s not uncommon, though, that one may try HRTs as a hobby or something similar. That’s the cognitive entertainment. You take them ‘for fun’, for the pleasure of solving challenging puzzles, the eureka moment of decoding a riddle, and so on. It’s not unusual that a competitive attitude takes place. If the competitive aspect is not pervasive is fine. If HRTs become an addiction and your mindset is too competitive, they should be avoided, since they lose their meaning and spirit, and the situation may become unhealthy. I speak according to my own experience.

Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?

Fiorani: As perceived by other people, since I was a boy, 7 years old. A teacher of mine told me: “You already are a thinker. You think in a superior way. More deeply, more comprehensively. You just think in a different manner”.

As discovered by IQ tests and psychometric tools, in 2015. I was 23 years old.

Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past 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.

Fiorani: I suppose that the historical and socio-cultural contexts are crucial here. Geniuses may incarnate multiple facets of human being, and typically exaggerated. You can idolize or reject; it’s our nature. Divinizing or demonizing what we can’t comprehend fully. The most entrenched vision of things is dualistic. View of existence can become Manichean, then. Not necessarily. Seldom we give away this Weltanschauung, though; it’s conscious but unconscious too, it’s a-rational and pre-rational mostly, then it’s rationalized.

Geniuses can go against a status quo, a paradigm, etc., so they might become a threat. Au contraire, sometimes they’re the inspiration needed for a revolution. Treatment of geniuses depends on the current predominant necessities, from epoch to epoch.

The ones alive today perhaps are mainly camera shy ’cause are against this liquid society… of surface, appearance, facade, emptiness, moral and conceptual non-substantiality… La société du spectacle, a society of exhibitionism, and then Homo vacuus.

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

Fiorani: The list is too long, to be honest with you. Plato, Dante Alighieri, Leonardo da Vinci, Gottfried Leibniz, Werner Heisenberg, Jacques Lacan, Kurt Gödel: these are good examples.

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

Fiorani: Briefly, the actualization of a potential. This actualization becomes an offer to mankind. A genius creates – originality, innovation, uniqueness: trademark of an actual genius. Geniuses are pioneers and precursors, and not epigones. Geniuses change how we view things.

Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?

Fiorani: Almost always, yes.

Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?

Fiorani: None. (see above)

Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?

Fiorani: I cannot reply for self-evident reasons.

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?

Fiorani: About high IQ individuals there are indeed myths to debunk. One of these, to me, is the idea of the high IQ person as cold, impassive, with scarce inclination for emotions overall. That’s simply a hoax. People tend to simplify things, categorizing a priori and labelling – it’s easier: less effort, less stress.

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

Fiorani: Religion is one of the fundamental ways through which humanity expresses itself: the relevance of religions – as a trans-cultural and omnipresent phenomenon – is unquestionable: history, sociology and anthropology demonstrates the fact abundantly.

About God. I quote an apophthegm which condenses a lot: καλούμενός τε κἄκλητος θεὸς παρέσται [Greek]/vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit [Latin]… Which in English is: “Bidden or not bidden, God shall be present”.

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

Fiorani: The role of science is essential and irrevocable. Science can be a perfect antidote to any absolutism and any relativism, simultaneously – both the instances lead to a dead-end street, from an epistemological and gnoseological perspective, but also from an existentialist point of view.

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

Fiorani: I scored > 170 σ15 on normed high range IQ tests designed by: Theodosis Prousalis, Xavier Jouve, Ron Hoeflin, Jonathan Wai, James Dorsey, Iakovos Koukas, Nick Soulios. And also others.

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. 

Fiorani: I consistently score above 160 σ15 (if my effort is optimal); rare exceptions. I also have a couple of 180+ σ15. My strongest area is the verbal one but I can consider myself a versatile test-taker, having scored 165+ σ15 in all main fields of high range testing (verbal, numerical, spatial, mixed; untimed and also timed).

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

Fiorani: Kantianism.

Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Rousseauism.

Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Liberalism.

Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: notably cf. A Theory of Justice (John Rawls, 1971).

Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Spinozism. »Philosophieren ist Spinozieren«, as Hegel unerringly said.

Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Nietzscheanism.

Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?

Fiorani: Ich und Du relationship. To put it simply, intersubjectivity. The others. (anti-solipsistic view)

Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?

Fiorani: Externally and internally derived, in synchrony.

Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?

Fiorani: About this, ἐποχή (epoche), id est ‘suspension of judgment’, is my best answer.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life? 

Fiorani: Life always presents what Carl Gustav Jung called numinosum, ineffable sacred mystery.

Life’s impermanence enriches things, not the opposite. But we, by nature, are afraid of death and the end of things. The process of wisdom to think and sense otherwise is very slow, and arguably inexhaustible.

Jacobsen: What is love to you? 

Fiorani: The most marvellous sentiment that we have.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] First Member, RealIQ.

[2] Individual Publication Date: January 8, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/fiorani-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.