Ronald Hoeflin, Mega Test, Titan Test, and Giga Society

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/07

According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.

He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.

Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube. Here we – two long-time buddies, guy friends – talk about IQ and its associated promises and perils.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s delve into the topic of debunking IQ claims. We’re examining Rick Rosner’s insights. Could you explain the concept or the underlying psychometric philosophy of ‘associative horizon’?

Rick Rosner: In my understanding, it refers to the breadth of associations one can generate when confronted with a particularly challenging problem, perhaps one that demands over 10 hours of contemplation. It’s about the variety of perspectives you can apply to the problem, the range of life experiences you can correlate, the number of potential analogies you can draw, and the different ‘keys’ you possess to unlock the problem’s intricacies. Is the term you’re using ‘associative horizon’?

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s correct.

Rosner: Essentially, it’s the extent of associations you can form using the symbols or elements of the problem at hand. Part of tackling high-end IQ tests involves understanding the mindset of the test creator, discerning a pattern or a ‘flavor’ in the problems, which can guide you in the right direction. Different creators imbue their problems with unique characteristics, sometimes influenced by their cultural background. For instance, a familiar puzzle asks to decode ‘seven D in a W,’ which stands for ‘days in a week.’ The complexity of these problems varies.

To illustrate with a simpler example, consider ‘5280 F in an M,’ which translates to ‘feet in a mile.’ Then there’s ‘106 billion P who E L.’ Here, ‘P’ refers to ‘people,’ but ‘E L’ is more challenging to decipher. It actually stands for ‘people who ever lived.’ Many IQ problems involve this kind of symbolic decoding. Another example is ‘6 times 10 to the 23rd A’s in an M,’ which, although I might be mistaken on the numbers, stands for ‘atoms in a mole.’ These problems not only test cultural literacy but often require further manipulation of the symbols. You might need to undergo two or three transformations or link them together to fully resolve the problem. It’s about the extent of cultural knowledge you possess or can acquire, and your ability to flexibly combine different elements when addressing a complex or convoluted issue.

Jacobsen: Okay. Now, regarding the mega tests, what were the claims about your scores in each section by Ronald K. Hoeflin, the media, and others, and what were your actual scores in each section?

Rosner: The claims about the Mega test were that it was the world’s hardest IQ test, and at the time, it likely was, with an exceptionally high ceiling. For instance, I believe after the sixth norming, based on Ron’s analysis of 4,000 test submissions from Omni, the ceiling was established at 190 SD 16 or 5.6 Sigma. The first time I attempted it, I scored 44, with 23 correct answers in verbal, one incorrect, 21 correct in math, and three incorrect. On my second attempt, I scored 47, with just one math question wrong.

What does that mean for me? Well, after the fourth or fifth norming, my score of 44 wasn’t sufficient for Mega admission. Marilyn herself denied my entry. At that time, my score might have equated to around 172. Then, after the sixth norming, with new scores considered, a 44 was deemed to correspond to about 180, with the Mega cutoff being 176. So, that’s the one in a million level. Alright, what’s the next question?

Jacobsen: How does the internet affect legitimate testing in the high IQ range?

Rosner: The Mega was introduced in 1985, and its sequel, the Titan, in 1990. Most people started using the internet in the mid to late ’90s. For these tests, the internet both complicated and contaminated them. People were sharing answers on message boards, some of which were correct. Another issue arose with Google. Simply inputting three words from an analogy into a search engine often brought up the fourth word. Considering that half of the Titan and Mega tests were bets and analogies, consisting of 24 verbal problems, this made them easy to solve with a good search engine.

However, tests like Cooijman’s, which I find to be among the most challenging of the internet era, cannot be easily solved by just searching online. You still need to figure a lot out.

The most general issue with these tests and the internet is answer sharing. Beyond that, it’s challenging to ensure that test problems can’t be easily solved with searches. Chris and his team are developing tests resistant to answer sharing, creating tests that give each participant similar yet uniquely detailed problems. This means someone else’s answer won’t help you, even though solving the problem indicates the same IQ level. They’ve been working on this for over a decade, and it’s progressing. So, what’s the next question?

Jacobsen: Okay. Some people, actually more than just a few, suggest that there are individuals with IQ scores extending well beyond the norms of mainstream tests, like the Stanford-Binet, which typically measure up to around four standard deviations. Assuming these claims are legitimate, these individuals would be extraordinarily intelligent, with scores ranging from just over four Sigma to as high as Six Sigma. How is this kind of extrapolation generally perceived within the high-IQ communities, especially at these higher ranges?

Rosner: I believe the skepticism towards super-high IQ scores is more directed at specific claims rather than the overall concept of achieving such high IQ levels. Most people in the high-IQ community accept the possibility of an IQ nearing 200. However, there’s also a general understanding of how rare such scores are. Adult IQs, based on deviation scores, follow a bell curve. In a normal distribution, like for height, about 34 percent of the population falls between zero and one standard deviation. Fourteen percent fall between one and two standard deviations, and about one and a half percent between two and three. Roughly half a percent of the population is between three and four standard deviations. Beyond four standard deviations, it’s about one in 30,000, one in three million for five standard deviations, and roughly one in 750 million for six standard deviations. I might have made a slight error here, but that’s the general idea according to the standard bell curve.

People often argue that at the extreme ends, there are more outliers than what a perfectly bell-shaped distribution would suggest. However, even with this consideration, you wouldn’t expect to see more than a handful of people with scores above six standard deviations. Paul Cooijmans’s Giga Society, for instance, has about seven or eight members, intended for those with IQs supposedly one in a billion. With eight billion people on earth, having eight members in the Giga Society seems plausible, except it’s not entirely accurate. This assumes that everyone capable of scoring at that level has taken one of his tests, which is obviously not the case. So, the number of people scoring at the one-in-a-billion level is too high, but not excessively so. Cooijmans is thorough in his norming and testing.

If someone scores at or near the Giga level on a Cooijman’s test legitimately, there’s a general consensus that they’re genuinely intelligent. Legitimate claims of super high IQs are usually based on excellent performance on ultra high-IQ tests or exceptional scores on tests like the Stanford-Binet or Wechsler during childhood. There are several individuals who can credibly claim childhood scores of 200 or 220. However, those who falsely claim super high IQ scores usually aren’t sophisticated in their deception. Their claims often don’t withstand scrutiny. As for sophisticated lies about super high IQs, I’m not aware of many, if any. Then, there are skeptics outside the high-IQ community, but their doubts don’t cause much concern because, frankly, who cares? If you know something that contradicts what I’m saying, please feel free to share.

Jacobsen: What drives people to make claims that far exceed the norms of most mainstream tests, such as scores above 166 on a standard deviation of 4?

Rosner: Based on my own experience, around the age of 20, I felt somewhat like a loser. I had squandered numerous opportunities. Then, someone introduced me to what was previously considered the world’s hardest IQ test, a Kevin Langdon test, which I believe was featured either in Omni or Games magazine. When I took it, I scored 170, which was surprising and uplifting for me. So, when the Mega test came out five years later, I tried that too. I found a sense of validation in these scores, even though it might seem a bit absurd. To me, it’s somewhat analogous to a guy who can bench press 500 pounds. It’s an unusual feat – you wouldn’t tell him it’s ridiculous to his face. Consider someone like Sven Magnuson, who’s 6’4″, weighs 310 pounds, and consumes 200 grams of protein daily to maintain that strength. He might face hypertension and joint issues in a decade, but it’s still remarkable he can bench that much. It’s an obscure sort of sport, not yielding fame or success like playing in the NFL. Sven probably works in a warehouse and does strength training as a hobby. So, it’s a niche kind of sport.

Jacobsen: What are some of the more extreme IQ claims made in the 20th century, either by groups or individuals?

Rosner: Well, anyone can say anything on the internet. One of the most outlandish claims I’ve come across, which I’ve mentioned before, was a website asserting that Jesus had an IQ of 300, making him the smartest person ever. This claim seems to be based on the notion that Jesus’ profound wisdom must equate to a high IQ. It’s a far-fetched claim, suggesting that if normal people have IQs up to 200, then Jesus must be at 300, based on nothing concrete. As for historic claims, like those suggesting William Sidis had an IQ around 250, at least these are grounded in his notable early-life achievements. Although these estimates are somewhat excessive and not based on actual testing, they are earnest attempts to gauge the intelligence of a very smart young man.

Some of the most blatant cases I’ve come across involve, let’s say, overly ambitious parents. For instance, about 18 years ago, a mother in Colorado somehow obtained the answer key to an older edition of the Stanford-Binet test. Since this test gets revised every 15-20 years, it’s still possible to find psychologists who administer previous versions. This mother, in the University of Colorado’s northern library, found an earlier edition and proceeded to teach her three-year-old all the answers. Consequently, the child, at three or four years old, scored equivalent to a 10-year-old. The way childhood IQs are calculated, this gave him an IQ well over 300. She attempted to gain fame for herself and her child based on this, but it eventually fell apart because, unsurprisingly, the child did not actually have a 300 IQ. I can’t recall the details, but it didn’t end well.

Such an act is quite egregious but theoretically feasible if you’re not careless about it. However, anyone engaging in this is, by default, acting irresponsibly. Imagine, though, if someone took a genuinely intelligent child and, with sufficient motivation and a somewhat unscrupulous approach, coached them for these tests. I’m not sure how committed a four-year-old would be to such a scheme, but a six-year-old might be more persuadable, especially if promised fame or an acting career.

This reminds me of Alicia Witt, a child actor who was also a great kid actor partly because she was extremely intelligent. Being able to read at a very young age, she could handle scripts and sophisticated directions, which is rare for a child her age.

Now, if there were a parent and a bright, motivated six-year-old willing to collaborate, they could potentially sustain the illusion of the child having an IQ over 300 for a considerable time. This, however, would be highly unethical. I even toyed with the idea of writing a screenplay about such a scenario about 30 years ago. It would be a fascinating plot, though nobody has successfully executed this in reality to that extreme extent.

Jacobsen: What are the significant lessons from debunking false IQ claims in the 20th century?

Rosner: The overarching question in the realm of high IQ is ‘why’. Why do people claim high IQs, strive for top scores on these tests, or dedicate effort to debunking such claims? Looking back, scrutinizing those who assert super high IQs makes sense, especially considering individuals like Keith Raniere, the NXIVM cult leader now imprisoned. He used his high score on the Mega test as a pillar for claiming he was among the smartest people on Earth. Although he didn’t overly emphasize his IQ once he had amassed a following, it was an initial tool for gathering acolytes. It seems he eventually relied more on charisma, manipulation skills, and being at the apex of a hierarchy filled with adept manipulators.

He was clever enough to enlist a number of actors, including charismatic TV stars, some from shows like ‘Smallville’, who had legitimate careers in show business. One of his persuasive tactics, similar to what Scientology claims, was suggesting that the skills they taught could aid in professional success in fields like acting, where the path to success can seem quite elusive. As a result, he didn’t need to frequently boast about his IQ because he was already surrounded by TV stars who aided in recruiting others to his cult. Nonetheless, he certainly warranted closer scrutiny much earlier than he received it.

There’s another individual who’s somewhat cult-like, with several followers, and he’s involved in some unsettling activities. This highlights one reason to be cautious about claims of super high IQ: they can sometimes be used for nefarious purposes. However, such individuals are relatively rare. Among the 60, 80, or 100 people who’ve qualified for the Mega Society over the past 40 years, more than 95% are completely normal and harmless. The biggest risk might be encountering someone like Richard May, who’s not only extremely intelligent but also incredibly witty. So, in general, there’s no need to fear people with super high IQs.

For the most part, it’s harmless to let high IQ individuals enjoy their status. The few exceptions don’t negate the fact that most activities involving IQ exaggeration are pretty transparent. Most high IQ fabrications occur in mundane settings, like a desperate person at a party, or that 25-year-old who’s still attending undergraduate parties at his college, cornering a freshman girl to brag, “Yeah, people don’t understand me. I’ve got a 240 IQ; I graduated high school when I was 12.” It’s that kind of blatant falsehood. While there are more sophisticated attempts at fabricating high IQs, they are not much more convincing. The rewards for such deceit are minimal, even less significant than impressing a freshman at a college party.

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.