Ask A Genius 868: Some Reflection on Norms and Statistical Analysis: or, Getting Jiggy with It

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

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

[Recording Start] 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Does proper statistical analysis… Ron Hoeflin tips the hat to him. Now, I have gotten responses from some members of the high IQ community on this particular one. When I point out these new norms and Ron Hoeflin’s statement that I am not a statistician, they will say I still stick to the old norms, which say 190+ on a standard deviation of 16.

Rick Rosner: All right. So, I’m going to talk about those same issues. The thing one is to norm a test, given that you’ve got scores along the whole range, that is, people going from zero questions right to all questions right, which you really didn’t have on the Mega test. I’m not sure anybody has gotten all questions right on a first attempt; at least nobody did before the coming of the internet, but I think the highest somebody might get might be a 47 at some point. Anyway, as long as you’ve got a decent number of scores at each point along with self-reported IQ scores, as long as those self-reported IQ scores aren’t bullshit, you don’t need to be much of a statistician to come up with the reasonable corresponding IQs for each number of correct answers. 

Jacobsen: So, an analogy might be with economics providing clean theories to describe things after the fact and then they talk about this concept of externalization or externalities.

Rosner: What is that?

Jacobsen: An externality is a variable you haven’t taken into account.

Rosner: Okay. So, let me talk about a couple of variables. After 1995 and for every year thereafter, it became increasingly easy to get a high score on the Mega and the Titan. The Mega and the Titan each consist of 24 verbal and 24 math items and all of the verbal items are analogies. This is to say that the other thing is to fill in the blank, and those are really hard if you don’t have an internet search engine, but they’re really easy if you have Google. Well, no, a hard one is really hard, and an easy one is still easy, but it becomes trivial once you have a search engine. So, somebody taking the Mega now and with access to the internet could probably harvest 36 or 40 of the answers just via Google. 

Jacobsen: I mean, you could probably get some answers from ChatGPT now. 

Rosner: Oh! I didn’t even think of that. 

Jacobsen: Someone gave an IQ test to ChatGPT. I think the person scored it with a verbal IQ of 155.

Rosner: All right. So, with Google, I think you can get 36 to 40 questions just based on that. Google will solve analogies for you, and another half or more of the math answers to the math questions are floating around out there on various forums. Some of these problems have been discussed extensively, and so if you’re persistent, if you gave somebody, say, here’s Google, here’s the mega test, and you have 40 hours. Spend two hours a day for the next 20 days to see how many of the answers you can find. I think you could find, as I said, close to 40 of them, which would correspond to, if you were taking the test legitimately in 1985, an IQ of 160. Now, it corresponds to an IQ of not really anything because all you’re doing is plugging shit into a search engine. I forgot the name of the guy who did the new norms, but if there are new scores out there that are from the past 20-25 years, those new scores are going to give artificially lower IQs for the same number of answers correct because those people are boosting their number of right answers by using internet search. So, that’s an issue.

Jacobsen: That’s interesting. we could find that out indirectly. I haven’t done this; we could find out at what point this author is using the cut off for the sample size and that will tell us what year is taken into account.

Rosner: Okay, I mean, maybe he just used the original data sets if those are available; the data sets from 1985 when thousands of Omni readers because that’s where it was published, submitted answer sets. The Titan comes out in 1990?

Jacobsen: Yeah. They said only 391 omni readers took the Titan; you being one of them obviously and then 3200 took the mega test. So, 391 versus 3200 for the Titan versus the Mega.

Rosner: Okay, and then here’s another confounding factor. The practice effect went from the Mega to the Titan.

Jacobsen:  Oh, because you scored a perfect, right?

Rosner: So, if you took the Titan cold, it’s a harder test than the Mega, but if you take the Titan having taken the Mega previously, it’s not harder because you’ve improved your skills at a Hoeflin test by familiarity with the test. So, that’s a weird thing. An IQ test is supposed to be practice resistant; you’re supposed to get hit with the types of problems in an IQ test cold like on a Stanford Binet or the WAIS or WISC; these are supposed to be novel tasks, and it’s supposed to measure your skills cold but if you practice you can get really good at these skills, and you can get really high IQ scores just by having practiced. Anyway, that’s the deal for going from the Mega to the Titan. 

Jacobsen: There’s a paragraph here in section five of the paper that says the mega test. “The January 1986 issue of Omni carried a score report for the magazine’s readership who had taken the mega test as printed in the April 1985 issue. It was stated that about 3200 readers submitted answers to Dr. Hoeflin and that the median score was 15. An accompanying graph allowed information to be read off about the frequency of each raw score because this was given in tens; it required some concentration on our part to arrive at an exact number of readers who had achieved a particular raw score. We are convinced that our reading is accurate, which was confirmed by a grand total of 3,258 testees.” So, they may be simply doing the calculation from the original number of takers. 

Advertisement

Rosner: So, let’s talk about pubic hair. 

Jacobsen: Go ahead.

Rosner: So, Playboy magazine in the 50s and especially in the 60s became the first celebrated, widely read, acceptable to have on a coffee table Magazine with naked ladies and until about 1970, Playboy magazine didn’t show pubic hair on its centrefolds anywhere in the magazine because it was a classy naked lady magazine. Hence, your dad was able to subscribe to it. People like to say they read it for the articles; it was classy. And then, starting in the late 60s and early 70s, Hustler and Penthouse came out to compete by being dirtier than Playboy. Penthouse, which I think came a little before Hustler, was the first magazine to show pubic hair and prided itself on being more pornographic, say, than Playboy. If you were jaded by Playboy and needed harder stuff to get a boner, then you’d look at Penthouse. And then Hustler was way raunchier than either Playboy or Penthouse. Why this is pertinent because the publisher of Penthouse, the pubic hair magazine, and his wife were the publishers of Omni magazine. 

Omni was a topic in science and science fiction, and the future of technology was presented in a much more sensationalized way than, say, Scientific American. Omni was a slick magazine that had a little bit of a porn-y feel to it. It took the scientific topics of the day and jazzed them up for a lazy audience. So, you can ask the question, are the 3200 readers of Omni, this slick magazine published by a porno publisher; Omni itself was not pornographic, but it was slick; are they a representative chunk of the population in terms of IQ? 

Jacobsen: No.

Rosner: Because they’re interested in Omni, they are going to probably be smarter than average.

Jacobsen: May I interject?

Rosner: Go ahead.

Jacobsen: They were or are, if they’re alive, significantly smarter. Their average score on the Mega was 15. People from Mensa struggle to get a couple questions right.

Rosner: Right. So, I mean, it’s a super hard test, but it is a question like right now in America, political polling is a disaster because 20-30 years ago, if you cold-called somebody and said, “I work for a political survey company. May I have 10 minutes of your time to discuss your political opinion? One person in three would say yes? Now, it’s fewer than one person in 500, which is bad because if almost 99.9% of regular people don’t even pick up their phone or just say no, that one person in 500 or a thousand might be a lunatic with an agenda. So, getting a representative sample of the population is extremely difficult. I’m just bringing up the issue, and I got to talk about pubic hair to ask whether there was anything weird with regard to IQ about the people who took the test from Omni magazine. I would think that it would be skewed way over that there’d probably be almost 90% of males who submitted scores.

Jacobsen: You’re talking to someone in the right industry. I will tell you someone who has started publications, who has edited for publications, who has written for publications, and who has mentored people in all those areas. The publication itself will naturally and organically develop an audience. If they have advertising, that will be driven even further because certain people are interested in certain products, and they want to get people in those magazines that’ll be attracted to those products. So, the people who are going to say, can I advertise my stuff in your magazine? They will go to places that will get the most impact, and they’ll have departments to help them do that, especially them. So, I would argue the strongest possibility is that a particular type of person will be driven to actually read that magazine, and then the subset of people that read the magazine will go, “I can do well on that test.”

So, it’s such a small population of ‘I believe I am smart enough for that’; so it’s a bit an ego but also…

Rosner: Frustrated smart guys such as myself.

Jacobsen: Yeah, certainly, like Chris Cole, Marilyn Vos Savant, etc.

Rosner: No, Chris Cole is not a frustrated guy. I’ve never talked to him about this, but I don’t feel like Chris Cole had social/sexual frustration. He seems like a very well-adjusted guy who takes life as it comes. There are various flavours of incel, which is short for involuntarily celibate. When you think of the modern incel, you think of an angry guy who kind of hates women and who’s an internet troll, but they’re really two flavours of incel. There’s the angry incel who blames women, and there’s the self-improving incel which I was who’s like, “All right, I can’t get a girlfriend; how do I make myself better to get a girlfriend?” 

Jacobsen: You gave yourself scars.

Rosner: Yes, because I thought chicks dig scars.

Jacobsen: Chicks don’t dig scars!

Rosner: I did whatever I possibly could to make myself manly and attractive. Also, we should mention to younger listeners that magazines used to be a big deal. Now, there are these weird fossilized remnants of a time before the internet, but people used to get all their breaking information from newspapers and magazines; they were a big deal, and they were our entertainment. So, the same person who read Omni would likely read Penthouse; they probably ran ads from the same advertisers. They definitely read Heavy Metal magazine; I don’t think that was from the Penthouse people, but it had the same sensibility, which was it was a comic book magazine but high-end graphic novel stories for the same person who loves science fiction.

So, most of the people who took the Mega, well, overrepresented among the people who took the Mega, were young, like frustrated, smart guys who felt like they had something to prove.

Jacobsen: Some used it for publicity, such as Keith Raniere and Marilyn Vos Savant.

Rosner: Case in point, Keith Raniere used it as one of the foundations for forming what would eventually become a sex cult.

Jacobsen: That’s true. Marilyn used it for minor fame as well.

Rosner: Not just minor fame but a career which spanned decades. I estimated at some point that based on getting in the Guinness Book of World Records for having the world’s highest IQ, she was listed for three years in the Guinness book, and the Guinness book was a big deal back then, too. Based on that, Marilyn got hired to be the genius columnist at Parade Magazine, and I’d guess that based on her fame, she probably had a career that grossed her like $6 million in lifetime income, which is nothing for money made in the 80s through the 2010s.

Jacobsen: Another person is Richard May; he seems very well adjusted. He has a very balanced emotional intelligence.

Rosner: Yeah, and Chris Cole is well-adjusted, and they’re probably more well-adjusted people living normal lives. I mean, you could argue that for all my eccentricities, I’m pretty well adjusted, and I’ve lived a fairly normal life for the most part.

Jacobsen: I’ve made my point before, and I stand by it. I put a lot of that down to you being married, having a daughter, and Carol’s normalcy.

Rosner: Yeah, if I weren’t with Carol, God help me!

Jacobsen: [Laughs] Who’s that Russian mathematician that solved the Poincaré conjecture?

Rosner: I know, the guy who turned down the award money, the million bucks.

Jacobsen: Grigori Perelman, the Russian mathematician who turned down the money for winning…

Rosner: For solving one of the hardest problems.

Jacobsen: Yeah. So, Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman in 2003 solved the Poincaré conjecture. There are people now who are just becoming adults who have no idea about this amazing thing that he did. He has some pretty weird quotes but he looks a little worn down.

Rosner: I don’t know what the deal is, but when I was a physics undergrad at the University of Colorado, they put up headshots of all the grad students in physics at CU, and it wasn’t that CU has a pretty large physics department. It was almost all guys; it might have been all guys because this was the early 80s, and I looked at them, and they all had problems with keeping their hair. I’m like, “Whoa! Does using your brain like this because we get problem sets where it would take like three hours to solve three problems. Does this level of concentration just cook the hair off of your head, or what? Grigori Perelman, I think he’s got that same sad-like hair that just cooked off his head deal going on, right?

Jacobsen: Yes. Okay, I did not know this. I know of seven Millennium Prize Problems. To date, the only Millennium Prize Problem solved was the Poincaré Conjecture by Grigory Perelman. So, I didn’t know none had been solved at all before or since, so he was the only person, and that’s amazing. 

Rosner:  Yeah. Were you drawing a thing that he seems like a guy who is eccentric is what you’re saying?

Jacobsen: Yeah, he looks eccentric; he looks, in traditional terms, unsuccessful in his life outside of solving that problem, whereas you are married and have a kid and with your eccentricities, that sort of toned it down.

Rosner: Right, plus working in television with some of the slickest motherfuckers to ever walk the face of LA, that knocks off some corners, plus working in bars for 25 years and saying Hi to three-quarters of a million people.

Jacobsen: And that’s fair. I mean, certainly, most people get married, have kids, and so on, and eccentric people can kind of have the same thing that happened with you, but I mean, certainly, there are people who don’t get married and have kids, and they aren’t eccentric, but I’m just making the very narrow point that when you have kind of a genius level intellect, and you are eccentric, and you’ve had a very sort of strange like story, that when you do have marriages it acts as an anchor.

Rosner: Yeah, very much an anchor like Carol gets on me like my mom was a little bit of a hoarder, and she had like bags and bags, and we would come to her house, and she’d hold on to newspapers thinking she’d get around to reading them except you get another couple newspapers every day, so you never catch up. And Carol sees me, like today I threw away 10 newspaper sections that I’d accumulated because I hadn’t gotten around to reading them, and I’m like to Carol, “I’ll get to them, I’ll get to them,” but Carol saw what happened with my mom and I go “Hand me that People magazine” and she won’t give me the People magazine until I throw away like three newspaper sections which is a weirdly constrained existence for somebody with possibly a 190 IQ. 

Jacobsen: [Laughs] So, do you take the Redvaldsen norms in any way seriously?

Rosner: I’d have to see more of it but the reasons I outlined in the earlier installment of this discussion, it’s before you can take any super high IQ seriously you have to answer to a reasonable level of convincingness whether super high IQs can even exist.

Jacobsen: I have a quote for that, if I may.

Rosner: Okay.

Jacobsen: It’s from the paper by Redvaldsen. “These three tests were the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test, the Mega Test and the Titan Test. They are the only credible tools for the measurement of intelligence at levels above the ceilings of the traditional instrument, the Stanford–Binet, first developed by Terman, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). The Concept Mastery Test is purely verbal or educational, which means it cannot capture numerical or logical thinking, seen as essential components of intelligence in all modern studies.” So, there is an admission. These three tests by Langdon and the two by Hoeflin are capable of measuring above four Sigma. So, whether you take the old norms or the newer trimmed-down norms, Hoeflin has achieved something unique in psychometric history, and he should get all the credit he deserves for that.

Rosner: Yes, he should, but let’s go back to the issue of when people think of genius, they may think of the genius they see in movies and on TV, like The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, to use a 55-year-old example. Kurt Russell, as a child actor, his character gets, I think, struck by lightning and gets a computer downloaded into his head and becomes a super genius. Gary Coleman, at some point, played somebody with a 200 IQ, and that’s just somebody in a movie who can just rattle off calculations and knows everything and knows the answer to every quiz show question. So, that’s one way of looking at an IQ genius. 

Another way of looking at genius in a more reasonable way is to see if that person can solve a problem that previously hadn’t been solved by any member of humanity, and then you get to people like Newton, Einstein, and Darwin. But when you look at Darwin, for instance, Darwin was kind of this aimless dude. He didn’t want to go into the clergy. His family needed him to do something. There was a ship, The Beagle, that was going on a world voyage, and the captain tended to get depressed; they knew this about him, and they needed to hire a paid friend to go with him; I forget the name of the captain but to go on this voyage and just freaking be friends with the captain so he didn’t get sad because the voyage would take five years. Darwin is interested in the natural world, and he sees more of it on his five-year voyage around the world to the Galapagos and a gazillion other places. He takes notes, he captures animals, he preserves them in pickle jars, or however they preserved animals, he draws them, he looks at the geology of the world in a bunch of different places, and he comes back home. 

He takes 20 years, 10, 15, 20 years to write up his theory of evolution; he just meticulously went through the arguments and developed the ideas of evolution and didn’t publish till his friend said there’s another dude who has your exact same theory, and he’s going to scoop you unless you publish right now. So, finally, after 5 years of the voyage, after 20 years of just sitting there and thinking, Darwin published, and we have the theory of evolution. Now, does that make Darwin a guy with a 190 IQ to come up with a theory that only one other guy came up with? Well, actually, other people had come up with very similar theories to the point of identical, but Darwin’s arguments were so well laid out because he spent 20 years laying them out and because he had these powerful benefactors and promoters that Darwin is now the most strongly associated with evolution. Does that mean he was the super-duper genius of biological thinking of all time? Or did he have the good fortune to have a deep biological and geological focus, or did he have the good fortune of going on this round-the-world voyage? And so, what does that say about super genius? It says that geniuses may be good and capable of solving super hard previously unsolved problems, but really, you need good luck on this voyage, and maybe you don’t need a 190 IQ.

Einstein said he had Sitzfleisch. However you say it, sitting flesh is the ability just to sit there and think about a problem until it yields, and that’s one of Cooijman’s three major characteristics of genius. I think he calls it conscientiousness, but it’s really like persistence, the ability to just hammer at something until your theory is fully formed and bulletproof. That’s a weird component of genius that it isn’t being able to snap pieces into place. Like Gary Coleman in a movie, it’s like the stubbornness to just hammer at a problem until it is sufficiently tenderized. And then Newton was a fucking prick who got sent home from college, I guess from Cambridge because they closed Cambridge because of the plague. And so, Newton, who had a bunch of fucking issues; his mom kind of gave him away when he was 10 because she got a new husband who didn’t want a kid in the house. He had this miraculous year when he came home from college, came up with calculus, and came up with the theory of universal gravitation.

Now, of the three, you could argue that Newton is the genius-ist genius, but at the same time, he had some weird shit going on with him that wasn’t genius. It was like pissy-ness and some weird sex thing eventually where he probably died a virgin and some weird stubbornness where he spent more time trying to decode the Bible than he did on calculus or gravitation and vindictiveness. He lived into his late 80s, and he was head of the mint, and he liked to fuck over his enemies. When you look at our greatest geniuses, you have to wonder whether it’s like being able to fit the pieces together or it’s being interested and good at puzzles plus some other personality or experiential quirks. 

Jacobsen: I am highly respectful of Hoeflin. I like Langdon; he has some things going on.

Rosner: I like Langdon and Hoeflin too and Langdon, I know he got frustrated by being harassed by a lunatic. If you’re associated with the Mega society which is the one in a million IQ Society, you will be bothered occasionally by people who think they deserve to be in the one in a million club but haven’t performed well enough on the tests that are accepted for admission.

Jacobsen: These guys, the ones that got him, prevented him from actually administering those tests again. He ended up not getting into Mega because he wasn’t qualified and ended up joining the Mega Foundation.

Rosner: I don’t know, but yeah, this one guy who harassed me, one guy charged me with mail fraud because I was editor of the Mega Society magazine for which I charged $2 an issue, and this guy thought that is the editor. Part of my job as editor was to research his claims of having a one-in-a-million IQ, which I did. I researched it. I went to the [39:36] library and tried to dig up these. I said all the test scores you’ve submitted are not accepted for admission; they’re from 60 years ago, and no literature on them exists anymore and their childhood tests. We don’t accept childhood test results, but I will look into it for you. I did, but I didn’t do it with sufficient doggedness, and I didn’t verify his claims because I couldn’t find the information because, again, this was in the early pre-internet days and because I was charging him for issues in the magazine, he reported me to the postal police because he thought he wasn’t getting his $2 and issue worth of service from me. The same motherfucker charged Langdon with being an unlicensed psychologist because he had these amateur IQ tests, and this guy again not getting the satisfaction of getting into the one in a million Club [40:56 sit] the state of California on Langdon for writing these and administering these purely for fun amateur IQ tests. 

At that point, Langdon just said fuck it, it’s not worth the nuisance. I did this as a fun hobby, as an intellectual exercise, and maybe to help develop a community of people who love solving hard problems, and this motherfucker is getting me charged with being a shrink without a license, so I’m just withdrawing from the whole fucking thing. 

Jacobsen: The Redvaldsen paper and the last point on Redvaldsen for that particular part was that of the 20,000 people that took the Langdon adult intelligence test, the LAIT…

Rosner: 20,000 took it? Wow!

Jacobsen: Yeah, that was not included in Redvaldsen’s analysis only,, save for the fact that he did not include the process of how he developed his analysis. So, then he couldn’t do a professional statistical analysis to then submit for this purview paper.

Rosner: Is this because he couldn’t get in contact with Langdon? 

Jacobsen: Let me see, I will pull up that quote. Just. Just give me a second. 

Rosner: So, I think Langdon claimed that the ceiling on his LAIT was 176 standard deviation 16, right?

Jacobsen: Maybe, it sounds right. So, quote is from Redvaldsen. “It is believed to have been taken by more than 20,000 individuals and was normed on the basis of recognized intelligence tests.” 

Rosner: Sounds like Langdon did the same thing. I took that thing, and I think that was the first super high IQ test I took, and it came out around 1980. So, before Mega or Titan and so he was using people’s self-reported scores, but there is another way to further verify your assumed norms by looking at the curve of the number of problems corrected by your test takers like the number of answers corrected should fall way off towards the ceiling of the test. Going from three standard deviations, one person is in 750, four standard deviations is one person in 30,000 if IQ follows a normal curve and five standard deviations is 1 in 3 million. So, if your test purports to measure a range from two standard deviations, which is one in 44, to, say, four and a half standard deviations, which would be roughly one in 400,000, you should see way fewer people getting scores right at the top end of your test based on what you’d have to guess would be the distribution of IQs among your test takers. To do that kind of analysis, you’d probably need to be a statistician because you’re making all sorts of assumptions. You’re assuming that the average IQ of somebody who submits scores to the LAIT or to the Mega to the Titan is maybe 130 or more and that the IQs are distributed in some kind of normal curve around 130, but it’s probably a skewed curve since you’re dealing with a self-selected population of smart people and doing that kind of analysis is much trickier. 

Jacobsen: The individual who ended up making things a hassle for you and a hassle for Langdon; what was his name?

Rosner: I don’t remember; I’d have to go see if I could dig it up in old papers. I assume he’s deceased now because this was, I think, more than 20 years ago, and he was submitting childhood test scores from, say, the 1930s. So, he was probably born in the late 20s. So, he’s probably no longer with us.

Jacobsen: The only individual who actually qualified and caused a lot of hassle for the Mega society as far as I know was Chris Langdon, is that correct?

Rosner: Yes. 

Jacobsen: Was there a lawsuit?

Rosner: Yes, because, and I don’t remember all the particulars, but he became editor of the Mega Society Journal, and then he tried to usurp certain functions of the Mega society and also when he was frustrated in doing what he wanted to do, he started the Mega Foundation which was designed to very strongly resemble the Mega society and I don’t know at what point the lawsuits happened and over what particular issues but he’s got a theory of the universe that he feels underappreciated for and he also feels that people don’t understand it and that it’s not his fault., it’s everybody else’s fault, I think. I haven’t had contact with him in more than 30 years. I have my own theory of the universe, and I don’t want us to get our theory of the Universe cooties on each other. It’s better that we develop our stuff independently of each other, right?

Jacobsen: What’s that lawsuit with the Mega Society? Basically, it was just him, and then his wife and then the lawsuit happened, and they lost the lawsuit. That’s basically what happened.

Rosner: Yeah, because they were fighting over like some kind of control of the Mega society that went against what the Mega Society was supposed to be for. But again, I don’t know the particulars. This, I think, happened back at the end of the 20th century. 

Jacobsen: So, this is just piling it up. This is just old use of a name legitimately and associated title and then going to court for it, losing the case, and that’s that yet keeping the Mega Foundation. So, it was basically over Mega Foundation. The Langdons, particularly Chris, lost the lawsuit; end of the story.

Rosner: It’s just like there are a lot of similar names; Kevin Langdon, the guy who developed the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test, versus Chris Langan, a totally different guy, but it’s easy to confuse them.

Jacobsen: If you want to go even farther, what I have noticed is that you have Richard Rosner, Richard May, Chris Cole, Chris Langan, Kevin Langdon; maybe there’s something going on there, I don’t know.

Rosner: No, I mean, like, my wife keeps bringing home books from the reserve shelf of our local public library she goes. These were reserved under your name, but I didn’t reserve them. I have to take them back to the library, and there’s somebody with my last name and probably the same first initial who lives in our little town of Studio City who’s reserving books at our local library and confusing the reserve system or at least my wife. There are two other Rick Rosners who are TV writer-producers, at least two of them. So, Rosner is a not uncommon name, and I’ve been sued for stealing an idea for TV by guys who pitched an idea that was fairly identical to a show that we got into production for one of the other Rick Rosners. So, they see the show where different generations of people compete to answer music trivia questions about each generation’s hit songs, and these guys are like, we pitched this guy, this idea, and then he made the show without crediting us, and so then my writing partner and I got deposed with those guys in the room, and our lawyer says, “Is this the guy that you pitched?” And the other guys are like, “Oh no, that was some other guy,” And then the case kind of dismissed. I was off the hook at that point, but yeah, people, there are a lot of similar names. 

[Recording End]

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.