On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments
Publisher: In-Sight Publishing
Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014
Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com
Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada
Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal
Journal Founding: August 2, 2012
Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year
Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed
Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access
Fees: None (Free)
Volume Numbering: 12
Issue Numbering: 3
Section: E
Theme Type: Idea
Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”
Theme Part: 31
Formal Sub-Theme: High-Range Test Construction
Individual Publication Date: August 15, 2024
Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2024
Author(s): Rick Rosner
Word Count: 651
Image Credits: Daria Sheveleva on Unsplash.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Original publications here, December, 1994.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Keywords: Educational needs, High-ceiling tests, Indeterminate IQ, Ludicrousness, Obsolete, Psychometric community, Real-world performance, Rule-bending, Social awkwardness, Superhigh IQ, Test norms, Unassailable standards.
On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments
Editor’s comments: The concept of IQ itself is slightly obsolete and ridiculous. IQ testing has a history of unsavory agendas. The arena of superhigh IQ-ology is even more problematic. The problems lie in these areas:
- Lack of real-world performance by superhigh IQ people (Nobel Prizes, etc.), often coupled with social awkwardness, which further reduces credibility among people who do have social skills.
- Lack of a real-world reason to measure IQs above 150. As most of you know, the concept of IQ was introduced to make sure education met the needs of children with varying abilities by determining whether a student has low, medium, or high ability. Schools are equally ill-equipped to meet the needs of a kid with a 150 IQ and a kid with an IQ of 170.
- Lack of acceptance in the psychometric community and lack of unassailable norms for superhigh IQ tests.
- The ordeal of taking a superhigh-ceiling test, which eliminates qualified candidates who are busy doing something other than taking IQ tests.
- Rule-bending and the dissemination of high-ceiling test answers.
- The possibility that, in the higher reaches of IQ, IQ is inherently indeterminate—that no number can be assigned, that no well-ordered relationship exists among high-IQ people.
I’d like to think that high-IQ people, keeping all that in mind, could treat the whole high-IQ thing with, I dunno, some lightness. Indeed, the Mega Society recently celebrated its ten-year anniversary, and only in the past few months has the issue of qualification been the site of real teeth-grinding contention. (And the recent contention resembles professional wrestling as seen through the eyes of fans who think that pro wrestling is real.)
The high-IQ world is fraught with ludicrousness, but so is everything-religion, science (The Copenhagen interpretation is pretty goofy.), any -ology. I’m sure people have been admitted to Mega through a combination of characteristics, especially persistence, augmenting less than one-in-a-million intelligence, but I doubt anyone will gain admission through unrelenting attacks and the complete destruction of an admittedly imperfect but reasonably efficient (and probably the only practical) admission system.
Let me respond to specific points:
- As far as I know, Ron Hoeflin has consistently asked to be included in the Mega Society as the founder, not as a member. He has never claimed to qualify, though I think that the general feeling among members is that he is on a par with the members.
- The Mega Society is actually a combination of two merged societies, one of which was, for part of its existence, a 1-in-100,000 society, largely because of fluctuating norms to the Mega Test. One-in-a-million is certainly a catchier cutoff, but beyond that, I don’t think anyone would be too concerned about a change to one-in-a-hundred thousand. On the other hand, with all the varying norms flying about, I’m completely unpersuaded to alter the agreed-upon theoretical cutoff of one-in-a-million.
- No member will be booted out of the Mega Society or required to requalify. We suggested requalification a long time ago, and people were rightfully furious.
To get even more specific:
- While Paul Maxim’s analyses of Langdon and Hoeflin and their tests have a patina of objective analysis, most readers get the impression that they seethe with resentment predating his first submission to Noesis. I like any material that generates responses from other people, which Maxim’s material certainly does, but I don’t like the distress it causes me and seems to cause others.
- The history of Noesis is, to a large degree, the history of Chris Langan’s presentation of CTMU as a guide to the solution of Newcomb’s paradox and myriad other problems, and the sometimes-surly communication between Langan and other readers. Robert Hannon’s material has also generated a lot of frustrated letters.
- But both the Langan and the Hannon interactions seem to be conducted with more charity than the Maxim interactions, which make me fear for the continued existence of Mega.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Rosner R. On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments. August 2024; 12(3). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Rosner, R. (2024, August 15). On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments. In-Sight Publishing. 12(3).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): ROSNER, R. On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments.In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 12, n. 3, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Rosner, Rick. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 3 (Summer). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Rosner, R “On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 3 (August 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16.
Harvard: Rosner, R. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 12(3). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16>.
Harvard (Australian): Rosner, R 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Rosner, Rick. “On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.12, no. 3, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Rick R. On High-Range Test Construction 16: Rick Rosner, Editor’s Comments [Internet]. 2024 Aug; 12(3). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-16.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
In-Sight Publishing 