Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (5)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

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

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/03/01

Abstract

Erik Haereid is an Actuarial Scientist and Statistician. Eivind Olsen is the Chair of Mensa Norway. Tor Arne Jørgensen is the 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. They discuss: Nordic cultures; Norway’s birth rate; ‘White’ or Euro-North American racists; racists from across the pond; these same individuals within the borders of Norway; the typical view within the high-IQ circles; an Indigenous high-IQ group; people with higher IQs tend to have fewer kids; the Flynn Effect; smart women tend to have fewer children or none; and other directions.

Keywords: Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, IQ, Mensa, Mensa Norway, Norway, Tor Arne Jørgensen.

Norwegians of the High-Range Discussion with Erik Haereid, Eivind Olsen, and Tor Arne Jørgensen: Statistician & Actuarial Scientist; Chair, Mensa Norway; 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (5)

*Please see the references, footnotes, and citations, after the interview, respectively.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What words best describe Nordic cultures?

Eivind Olsen[1]: Generally speaking, the Nordic culture(s) are somewhat egalitarian — where most people are considered to be equal, unless they’re not. Royalty is one area where that’s not the case (in Norway, Denmark and Sweden).

Erik Haereid[2]*: Hard working. Independent. Naïve. Trustful. Egalitarian and excessive bureaucratic political systems spiced with a dash of double standards and hidden xenophobia. A combination of pietistic order and romanticized nationalism draped in a suit of provincial stubbornness and pride. And beneath these dichotomic layers of infantile behavior and mature responsibility, there is an intrinsic naïve belief in the goodness of mankind.

Tor Arne Jørgensen[3],[4]: Different, neutral, and innovative according to statistical poles. A healthy exterior characterized by an insufficient wish aimed at self-development ensured further by a steadfast and rock-hard economy and efficient institutions aimed at technological innovations. Furthermore, the Nordic Permian position is probably explanatory through its geographical imprint. Not only a barren and frozen landscape but housing a hardy people who sadly sit on their own personal mountaintops and share their interests by and for their own conceivable pleasure.

A historical population within its real-life monopoly state, whereby covered and insured through acquisitions furthered by philanthropic eccentricities fueled in the futile hope of saving an already lost existence by common front to stop global deforestation and beyond with their democratizing intensities, a part where joy, despair and boredom go hand in hand. The Nordic embrace that is postulated only to covers the rest of the world washed over by its cool exterior and shady appearance.

Jacobsen: In spite of the social and health indexes of a healthy society, Norway’s birth rate, as with many developed countries, is below 2.1 or the theoretical replacement level. Its most recent tallied level is 1.53. It’s not Japan bad, but it’s not great. What is the national conversation about this? Countries simply cannot make up the deaths with more immigration indefinitely. It can be a threat to social stability with destructive movements looking to capitalize on demonizing immigrants and to social welfare programs dependent on a productive younger population, especially ages 25 to 54 — more in the actuarial realm and expertise of Erik.

Olsen: There are probably multiple reasons for the low birth rate. I’m guessing that economics play a part (raising multiple children has a cost). People might want to wait until later in life before they have children — and might eventually realise that they have waited too long. We’ve also received sex education, and have good access to prophylactics, which probably leads to fewer “accidental” pregnancies. A society does need a certain amount of productive (as well as
reproductive) citizens. If we look back in time, people needed to have more children since not all of them could be expected to grow up. We also didn’t have the same social security we do today, so people needed to have kids so someone could take care of them when they grew old.

Haereid: “Make more children!”, our prime minister said a couple of years ago. I don’t expect it to have effect in the long run.

It’s an unfortunate combination having an aversion against too many immigrants and an aversion against getting and raising children; it’s a cataclysmic consequence of developing welfare states. Such attitudes are built on romantic beliefs in development; technology and eternal life. It’s like “the only person I am not in conflict with is me”, and this becomes the social benchmark. “To what do I need other people?”; a social dystopia and a narcissistic utopia.

It’s a substantial increase in the population for people older than 45 years, from 1990 to 2021, compared to the increase among those younger than 45. The population growth in the group 45–79 is about 57% from 1990 to 2021! The growth is only 12% in the group 0–44, and 35% for those older than 80 years. The population distribution between age groups is approximately 56% (0–44), 39% (45–79) and 5% (older than 80).

There are some net immigrations and some birth surplus, and there are not expected a lot more net birth nor immigration in the next couple of decades, and the growth in population are expected in the older group. There are about 18–19% immigrants in Norway today, and 20% of these are born in Norway with immigrant parents.

The xenophobia factor will always be apparent in societies with mixed populations, like in most western countries today. Statistics will of course prevent and reduce some of the irrational critics, but the harsh group of haters give a damn in statistics. I think the most important task is to provide statistics and information about ongoing changes to the people. If some exploits the system, independent if they are immigrants or ethnic Norwegians, the society has to deal with that and contribute to get everyone into activities. Assimilation is not about making everyone similar, but allowing everyone to be different together. The genetic similarity between humans is about 99,9%, and that should be an inspiration to nurture and respect our differences.

Jørgensen: Our former Prime Minister Erna Solberg went on national television and tried to influence the people to produce more citizens. We were and are still not able to maintain a positive development according to the birth rate of 2.1

It’s been a few years now, but a noticeable change is yet to be discovered. As immigration goes it cannot replace the growth necessary for the positive development of the population output. If this were to be the case, it would undoubtedly have been, and as one sees in Sweden that ethnic-related conflicts have escalated to conditions that are unfortunate to ensure a stable democratic development. According to what is presented in the media, the government in Norway will not allowed for that to happen here I am sure, as we have strict regulations on who receives a residence permit on the right basis, insofar as family reunification is concerned and more… If we are to maintain a healthy welfare system and at the same time hope for a prosperous economic future, whereby we the citizens can all benefit strongly, a strict regulation must be advisable at all levels- of social structure.

Jacobsen: ‘White’ or Euro-North American racists, typically, stoke fear and prejudice, and territoriality, about Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and America, being taken over by non-‘whites’ or non-European heritage peoples with the implicit claim of very low melanin levels in skin, generally speaking, associated with historical-territorial claims to post-colonial settlement nation-states — Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America(, and South Africa) — and Western European nation-states. These are, as usual, falsified racist lies, not simply for the basis on the non-scientific pseudo-taxonomical term ‘race’ and concept of ‘races.’ It’s not a term validated in scientific literature, by and large, and more reflects the sociological — so artificial — categories of the individual purporting to speak for their ‘actualization’ or reification. Anyhow, insofar as has been documented, the only known Indigenous group in Western Europe is the Saami (previously Laplanders). They live in currently drawn-out parts of Norway and other Nordic territorial boundaries too. They can be traced back to 6,000 years ago, which matches some of the longest-lived extant Indigenous civilizations today. Indigenous Europeans go back along time. What is the treatment and general knowledge about the Saami?

Olsen: Disclaimer: I’m do not, as far as I know, have a Saami background myself, so my reply here is based on my perspective and understanding. It won’t necessarily be universally valid. I think Norwegians in general know that Saami exist, but often just think of the reindeer herders in the northern part of Norway and forget that most Saami are not reindeer herders. The Saami are a diverse group, with multiple different Saami languages (from 3 to 11, I believe, depending on who you ask and how you count). Since the 18th century (at least, possibly longer), the church were campaigning to convert the “heathen” Saami to Christianity, and in that process did their
“best” to eradicate Saami culture and language — a process which was continued by the Norwegian state/government, and which to some extent has continued up until more recent times.

Haereid: The knowledge about the Saami people is poor but growing. The main TV-channel in Norway marked the Saami’s national day 6. February, and I think this is the first time they have done so into this extent. That’s an improvement.

In general, I think the Nordic people respect the Saami more than ever, based on knowledge about their culture. But it’s a long way to go.

Jørgensen: As far as the Sami people are concerned, the knowledge is consequently set up. We in Norway are well acquainted with the origins of the Sami people and the injustice that has been inflicted on them during the course of centuries. This dates back to the early 13th century and onwards well into the 16th century with reference to the persecutions as a result of the rumors of sorcery, shamanism, witchcraft, whereby the result is a witch hunt as recognized on a global scale, these persecutions were set forth by both the official ecclesiastical and the official Norwegian government, all the way to more recent times, now by failed assimilation policies imposed on the northernmost counties and there indigenous population.

The Alta uprising in 1981 that we who have lived a little remember all too well from the national news reports. The recognition of the Sami Parliament’s origins in a newer sense in 1989, the Sami National Day on 6th February and so on. The road to acceptance and recognition of the Sami people has been a tortuous path to walk, a sad testimony and national stain inflicted upon the real Norwegian origin, and not just a steel acquisition, whereby murder, oppression and deportation generally accepted procedure set forth by the Norwegian state. Recently decorated with a vague public apology from government officials far too little, far too late for such a wonderful and proud people.

Jacobsen: How do Norwegians tend to view the, rather loud, racists from across the pond in North America?

Olsen: We shake our heads in disbelief when we hear about blatant racism in the USA. Not that we necessarily understand or interpret the situation in the right way.

Haereid: Norwegians became angry after the George Floyd killing. Most people can’t believe that such an event can happen in a modern, civilized democracy. There is racism in Norway, obviously, and most verbal and subtle. But the violence in the Floyd-case, and some other cases where the American authorities have expressed irrational destructive behavior, is disturbing; it’s a tendency. One mad man; that happens. But when the incarnation of the Law treats people like that, and this is not one case, it is distressing.

Talking about the American racists in general, it depends on who you ask. Some get angry and emotional, and a few agree with them. Most are indifferent. I think some look at it as a part of a movement growing in USA, not at least in the wake of president Donald Trump. He pushed a hidden North-American button. There is something wrong with the distribution of goods.

Jørgensen: Land grabbing of tribe property, the oppressive condition put in place by the early settlers. The near extinction of the total Native American tribe community, furthermore the acquisition of forced labor through the triangle trade, as regards to the African American community, etc… are hereby far too much to deal with at this point. Briefly referring to Donald Trump and his movement, attempt to disabling of the entire democratic foundation by inspiring to attack the U.S. Capital building, nothing more is needed, furthermore the refusal of students to go to school during the decades from the early 20th century onwards.

Police assault and lots more, this for me must be a separate isolated topic, as this is one of my special fields, so one must categorize these events regards to both national and global spectrum for a later interview…

Jacobsen: Although, every country has them. What is the view of these same individuals within the borders of Norway?

Olsen: In general, we like to believe that we’re not racists ourselves. In reality, we as a society have our fair share of racists, somewhat-racists (“I’m not racist, but…”), and people being tarred
with the same brush as racists (“He votes for that political party, so he must be racist”). We have Trump-supporters, and we have “woke BLM-supporters”, and we have many people who are neither. My personal opinion? Racism (and other discrimination) is a tricky subject, and
not everyone agrees on what it is and what it isn’t. For example, some people will claim that racism is a one-way street — that it can only go in one direction (“only whites can be racists, and only towards blacks” — sorry for the choice of words, btw.), but that is a definition I do *not* agree with.

Haereid: Unfortunately, I think many Norwegians are quite indifferent to such people, including own racists. The internal pond is made of mountains, woods, miles and self-centered minds. I think this is one of the negative features with respect to prosperity; the rich don’t care unless they have to pay tax. The racists are usually not in their garden. I think there were a lot of empathy after 22/7 2011 (the ABB-killings). But after some months it disappeared.

Jørgensen: It is perceived as sad as it is, that people should treat each other in this way whereby the difference in skin color or otherwise should judge a person to status of less valuable, how on earth have we not come any further than that, look at what history has displayed with regards to the injustice toward peoples of different skin color. If certain elements of society are to keep up this mind-bending madness, nothing will ever change. Yes, we have this problem in Norway as well, and this is being cracked down on hard by both the general public and the police, hate crime is thus being judged extra harshly in this country and rightfully so.

The terror attack of 22nd of July 2011 on the innocent political youth at Utøya is a grim memory of this white supremacy movement. Populist riots in such a state must be eradicated any way possible. We the Norwegians in a big way as far as history goes been a big part of the disgraced also with regards to the slave trade also called the triangular trade during the 16th and 17th century, a historical record not to be proud of.

Jacobsen: Indeed, the high-IQ communities have them, even well-known ones. What is the typical view within the high-IQ circles?

Olsen: I have the impression that the typical view is pretty similar
to the rest of society.

Haereid: I don’t know the typical, current view among high-IQ people. I am hibernating at the moment.

Jørgensen: It is probably from what I mean and believe, that certain utterances are allowed, but where set outer boundaries are broken, the relevant elements are excluded. The freedom to express oneself as one wishes does not come without restrictions and fortunately one gets to say, when direct violations that move outside the direct events in question and whereby the focus is directed towards one’s ethnic origin are by that fact misplaced. What is in these unreasonable borderlands should be removed to ensure that everyone is accepted regardless of their heritage roots.

Jacobsen: Is anyone aware of an Indigenous high-IQ group or even individuals? I would love to interview them.

Olsen: I haven’t heard of any such high-IQ groups. Mensa is open to all who qualify, regardless of “race”, creed or religion, and I think most (all?) other groups also have similar principles. I know we have members with various ethnic backgrounds, but it’s not something we keep track of.

Haereid: I am not aware of any.

Jørgensen: I do not know, I’m sorry, but maybe Eivind or Erik have some more information to hand out here.

Jacobsen: Why do people with higher IQs tend to have fewer kids?

Olsen: I’m guessing it’s caused by many of the same reasons we have
low birth rates in society. The same factors probably apply to an even
greater extent.

Haereid: The short answer is: Because they (we) are emotionally immature, and/or want to spend their (our) time on pure cognitive, intelligent practices more than developing advanced social skills. This doesn’t mean that people with children are emotionally and otherwise mature, or that people without children are necessarily immature.

Jørgensen: The basis for having fewer children of those with higher IQ than the average is based on higher education in anticipation of better paid jobs. Moreover, career seeking whereby the intense desire to secure their own need for an opportunity into the history books has become for me in some degree an absolute. If one can spend time on self-sustaining activities, where disruptive elements can affect one’s outcome on success, then it becomes decisive for the possible conditions one undertakes.

This is summed up by the fact that the importance of one’s own success overshadows the need for happiness through the acquisition of one’s and for one’s own offspring.

Jacobsen: With the Flynn Effect in a modest stagnancy and decline, though with decades of increase over time before, is there a potential relationship between better nutrition, wider educational access, and improved equality for all — e.g., men and women, for higher average IQs and lower birth rates? Some have attempted preliminary research into test scores and GDP, for example.

Olsen: I wouldn’t be surprised.

Haereid: Yes, I believe so. Humankind is in a peak of its cognitive potential, and achievements are culturally prioritized. In this individual and collective struggle, we easily forget that we are mentally and physically limited as species. Our minds allow us to create ideas about who we are and what we can do, without any prior humbleness that make us get frequently in contact with whom we are; we tend to think we can achieve something we can’t within the timeframe we draw. We will profit on striving for a more balanced development. An example is the production of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is increased when we experience success, which we feel when we achieve something. It’s like getting a reward. In lack of alcohol or heroin, which obviously destroy our bodies, we use sex, prosperity, titles, chocolate, creating heroes, run and so on to attain the level of dopamine we feel we need. But that level normalizes on an increasing higher level. The problem with dopamine is the lack of it, and that level depends of how much “normal” has become, which is a function of how much pleasure we expose ourselves to. The abstinence factor, the pain, will appear immediately after we stop achieving and celebrating, and endure until the body accepts the lower level of achievements as sufficient. Raising children is more pain than pleasure, I have heard. And this alternating activity between ups and downs competes with the abundance of opportunities the modern unlimited world provides and will provide almost everyone.

Jørgensen: I have personally too little information on the subject, but I think that an improved and healthier lifestyle, less disruption from outside forces and to some extent negative stress, will affect most of us in a positive way according to mentioned better general physical condition and mental health. It seems obvious to me that this should be the norm, but in an age of widespread use of brain-dead mental stimuli, acquired through watching people eat food on YouTube, bloggers talking solely about mental exhaustion through loneliness and boredom, whereby their personal feelings are being exposed on social media in the hope of huge financial gain makes itself very prevalent.

The creative and or intellectual measuring bar that could be characterized by maintaining a previous high standard has now become so low that one simply stumbles across it on flat ground. What personally irritates me the most is that now the more brain-dead material that is presented, the greater the financial earnings, further fueled by a tsunami of “likes” and words of praise for its impressive and innovative content. I find myself torn between the following facts, whether in total belief as to positive social structure input, or in total despair of the foolish ingenuity on a global scale.

Jacobsen: Particularly smart women tend to have fewer children or none, there seems to be multiple factors playing into this. For one, as stated by many smart heterosexual or bisexual women, heterosexual or bisexual men don’t like smart women for long-term partnering as much on average, though only pluralistically anecdotal and women speaking about men rather than asking the men, too. For two, they’re busy with cognitively demanding jobs or educations, which take time and effort away from potential family formation or even supersede any interest in children with or without a partner. For three, there are many women who simply reject the stereotype of women’s innate natalist inclinations; some have absolutely zero desire: Deal with it. Do some of these analyses seem fair and reasonable? What other factors might be at play here? I realize the irony of four guys talking about this. What about smart men? What has been the experience for the three of you, e.g., Tor is a parent of two?

Olsen: Previously, society expected women to limit their ambitions to “breed” and “stay at home”. That is no longer the case. Not every woman has “produce offspring” on top of their bucket list.. I keep hearing how men supposedly only want “dumber” women, but that’s as you
mention anecdotal, and coming from women. I can’t remember having heard *any* man say that they want to find a “dumb” woman — but I can’t say that it never happens at all. Personally, Since we’re sharing anecdotes: I’m a heterosexual male, father of two. I’ve really only been attracted to women with at least half a brain — ideally a fully functioning one at that. My exes, and my current partner, have all been on the right side of the Bell curve (i.e. I’m convinced that
they’ve all had an IQ of 120 or higher (with standard deviation 15), and I know my partner is “Mensa-material” (she’s a member). No, I don’t know the exact numbers, and the numbers aren’t important. What matters is that the person has a brain and can use it, and that we feel like we’re living on the same planet (so to speak).

Haereid: Women want emotionally mature, charming, confident, masculine and strong men, optimized relative to their own self-esteem and social and sexual value. Traditionally, women think of their future children’s welfare, when looking for a lifelong partner. Exaggerated but to a certain degree true: Men look for sexual satisfaction when they choose women; women are traditionally pickier choosing men than men are when they choose women.

It’s something about men feeling unsecure when women beat them intellectually. This is linked to archetypical features. Men do not only provide food and security, but also inventions and technical solutions.

Raising children takes much of women’s time during their “best” years. I think smart women are more selfish in a more modern way, and want to achieve something, using their intellectual capacity. Getting and raising children are not only time-consuming, but also a risk; you depend upon the other half’s genes. You can predict something, but maybe only 10–20% of all the hidden genetic stuff. What if you get a child, you are not happy with? Then the moral issues take place, and invade a brain that you instead could use on evolving yourself.

I think the unconditional love “concept” is real in all of us, also in intelligent women. If you get close to another person, and especially your own flesh and blood, you can’t escape feeling strong love for that person independent of what or who this organic creature is. You can repress it, ignore it, but never get rid of it.

Before you choose to have children or not, you don’t have any; you are not in the condition of feeling unconditional love to your child, only having ideas about it. And our rational behavior doesn’t take such irrational emotions into account. Especially when your brain is filled with intellectual opportunities.

I have been in one fairly long (ten years) adult relationship with a woman, but are not in any now. Maybe I am too selfish, and probably introvert.

Jørgensen: Strong women tend to intimidate men with their intellectual superiority, their regulations governing the household with an iron grip. I easily see that their interests in self-realization can easily be a hindrance for family life, whereby a weaker male partner may have to give into their premises in favor of the strong female partner with reference to stereotypical career woman. For my part, I have now been so lucky that 22 years ago I found the most beautiful woman in the world, and who incredibly has endured me and all my extremities all this time.

I am eternally grateful for this.

My two boys or my two prides are knowingly set to this world of pure love as the desire for self-enrichment through the search for ever new knowledge, has been occasionally pushed aside and created space for emotional based care and parental feelings. The influence that my lady has had on me as an egocentric logic seeker has enriched me in more ways than I care to mention… The best in my life has sought me out and together with my close ones it is again time to seek towards new horizons in the quest for new and possible undiscovered knowledge just waiting to be plucked like ripe fruit from the tree of knowledge itself.

Jacobsen: What other directions are of interest to you? I think we can expand the conversation grounds to more Norwegians now.

Olsen: Other topics? I really like talking about Amiga computers, or why The Last Ninja was the best game ever on the Commodore 64. 🙂

Haereid: Why is little Norway the dominant nation in winter Olympics? And generally, in sport? What about more cognitive activities like art and science?

Libido and drives versus control and cognition. What is unconditional love? Is it possible to learn to like people? Is this necessary to establish civilized peace? Do we try to be civilized when it’s impossible to be? If so, why can’t we just be savage? Is UN and such institutions based on some powerful dictatorship that profit on creating illusions about humans being civilized? Or is the human idea about world peace sincere; embracing everyone?

What is convincement?

What are thoughts? What are perceptions, and how do they appear? What are emotions, and what kind of role do they play? Which social role do emotions like guilt, shame, anxiety, anger, happiness and interest, to mention some, have?

Jørgensen: I have previous mentioned in this interview of topics to be debated forward according to themes about North America and settler mentalities, Native American wars, African American exploitation, and segregation policies with regards to the 21st century. Also, looking forward to getting more people to share thoughts and opinions with.

Footnotes

[1] Eivind Olsen is the current chair of Mensa Norway. He has scored “135 or higher” (SD15) on the test used by Mensa Norway. He has also previously been tested with WISC-R and Raven’s. He recently took the MOCA test and aced it. When he’s not busy herding cats, he works in IT. He sometimes spends time with family and friends.

Eivind Olsen is a member of Mensa Norway since 2014, having filled various roles since then (chair of Mensa Bergen regional group, national test coordinator, deputy board member, and now chair).

He was born in Bergen, Norway, in 1976, but has lived in a few other places in Norway, including military service in the far north of the country.

Since he got bored at school and didn’t have any real idea what he wanted to do, he took vocational school where he studied electronics repair. He has worked in a different field ever since (IT operations).

He is currently residing in Bergen, Norway, with his significant other, 2+2 offspring, 2 cats and a turtle.

[2] Erik Haereid has been a member of Mensa since 2013, and is among the top scorers on several of the most credible IQ-tests in the unstandardized HRT-environment. He is listed in the World Genius Directory. He is also a member of several other high IQ Societies.

Erik, born in 1963, grew up in Oslo, Norway, in a middle class home at Grefsen nearby the forest, and started early running and cross country skiing. After finishing schools he studied mathematics, statistics and actuarial science at the University of Oslo. One of his first glimpses of math-skills appeared after he got a perfect score as the only student on a five hour math exam in high school.

He did his military duty in His Majesty The King’s Guard (Drilltroppen)).

Impatient as he is, he couldn’t sit still and only studying, so among many things he worked as a freelance journalist in a small news agency. In that period, he did some environmental volunteerism with Norges Naturvernforbund (Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature), where he was an activist, freelance journalist and arranged ‘Sykkeldagen i Oslo’ twice (1989 and 1990) as well as environmental issues lectures. He also wrote some crime short stories in A-Magasinet (Aftenposten (one of the main newspapers in Norway), the same paper where he earned his runner up (second place) in a nationwide writing contest in 1985. He also wrote several articles in different newspapers, magazines and so on in the 1980s and early 1990s.

He earned an M.Sc. degree in Statistics and Actuarial Sciences in 1991, and worked as an actuary novice/actuary from 1987 to 1995 in several Norwegian Insurance companies. He was the Academic Director (1998-2000) of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School (1998-2000), Manager (1997-1998) of business insurance, life insurance, and pensions and formerly Actuary (1996-1997) at Nordea in Oslo Area, Norway, a self-employed Actuary Consultant (1996-1997), an Insurance Broker (1995-1996) at Assurance Centeret, Actuary (1991-1995) at Alfa Livsforsikring, novice Actuary (1987-1990) at UNI Forsikring.

In 1989 he worked in a project in Dallas with a Texas computer company for a month incorporating a Norwegian pension product into a data system. Erik is specialized in life insurance and pensions, both private and business insurances. From 1991 to 1995 he was a main part of developing new life insurance saving products adapted to bank business (Sparebanken NOR), and he developed the mathematics behind the premiums and premium reserves.

He has industry experience in accounting, insurance, and insurance as a broker. He writes in his IQ-blog the online newspaper Nettavisen. He has personal interests among other things in history, philosophy and social psychology.

In 1995, he moved to Aalborg in Denmark because of a Danish girl he met. He worked as an insurance broker for one year, and took advantage of this experience later when he developed his own consultant company.

In Aalborg, he taught himself some programming (Visual Basic), and developed an insurance calculation software program which he sold to a Norwegian Insurance Company. After moving to Oslo with his girlfriend, he was hired as consultant by the same company to a project that lasted one year.

After this, he became the Manager of business insurance in the insurance company Norske Liv. At that time he had developed and nurtured his idea of establishing an actuarial consulting company, and he did this after some years on a full-time basis with his actuarial colleague. In the beginning, the company was small. He had to gain money, and worked for almost two years as an Academic Director of insurance at the BI Norwegian Business School.

Then the consultant company started to grow, and he quitted BI and used his full time in NIA (Nordic Insurance Administration). This was in 1998/99, and he has been there since.

NIA provides actuarial consulting services within the pension and life insurance area, especially towards the business market. They was one of the leading actuarial consulting companies in Norway through many years when Defined Benefit Pension Plans were on its peak and companies needed evaluations and calculations concerning their pension schemes and accountings. With the less complex, and cheaper, Defined Contribution Pension Plans entering Norway the last 10-15 years, the need of actuaries is less concerning business pension schemes.

Erik’s book from 2011, Benektelse og Verdighet, contains some thoughts about our superficial, often discriminating societies, where the virtue seems to be egocentrism without thoughts about the whole. Empathy is lacking, and existential division into “us” and “them” is a mental challenge with major consequences. One of the obstacles is when people with power – mind, scientific, money, political, popularity – defend this kind of mind as “necessary” and “survival of the fittest” without understanding that such thoughts make the democracies much more volatile and threatened. When people do not understand the genesis of extreme violence like school killings, suicide or sociopathy, asking “how can this happen?” repeatedly, one can wonder how smart man really is. The responsibility is not limited to let’s say the parents. The responsibility is everyone’s. The day we can survive, mentally, being honest about our lives and existence, we will take huge leaps into the future of mankind.

[3] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios.

Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. He is the only Norwegian to ever have achieved this honor. He has also been a contributor to the Genius Journal Logicon, in addition to being the creater of toriqtests.com, where he is the designer of now eleven HR-tests of both verbal/numerical varient.

His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students. Tor Arne has an bachelor`s degree in history and a degree in Practical education, he works as a teacher within the following subjects: History, Religion, and Social Studies.

[4] Individual Publication Date: March 1, 2022: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/norway-5; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2022: 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.