Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Johnstone is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for the New York Times, the Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Professor Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults. There is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence–precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/21
John Krotec, co-founder of NeoMasculinity Solutions, is championing a new vision of masculinity focused on critical thinking and truth in the digital era. His initiative empowers men to embrace their roles as protectors and leaders while adapting to societal changes.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with John Krotec, co-founder of NeoMasculinity Solutions. First of all, every new idea has an inspiration. What was the origin of this initiative?
John Krotec: Thank you for having me, Scott. That is a great question. I did not know it at the time. However, in the summer of the third grade, when I was still in elementary school, I was sexually assaulted during a neighbourhood sleepover. Children should never be exposed to something like that. Still, I was already starting to question masculinity, human relationships, and trust. That was likely the foundational experience. I have been trying to figure out questions about human interactions all my life. What is the role of masculinity? What is the role of femininity? The roots of this initiative were born from that pain.
That is where it started. Later on, as I evolved — do we ever truly evolve? — as I got older, I began to find my place in the world. I was very successful, went off to school, and ran a successful business for a couple of decades. Then, I was involved in a traumatic brain injury accident. I do not recommend this — I was drinking and driving. Thankfully, I did not hurt anyone else, but I did hurt myself. That forced me to confront the dark, dirty secret I had been hiding for over 40 years. I finally integrated all that pain and questions and developed observational skills about human interaction that I had never considered before.
Let us fast forward a decade. It is an understatement to say that humans are now subjected to massive amounts of information. 24/7, 365 days a year, people are bombarded with various information, much of it unreliable. We are in a digital age of rapid-fire information. You see this as a journalist. You understand what is going on. I love that you and your colleagues are always searching for the truth.
What do you see when you look at societal issues beyond the information bombardment? Significant leadership issues are happening in the country, particularly with masculine leadership roles. We can debate the reasons, but it is evident. More recently, it seems like the family unit is under attack. The old traditions of patriarchy and similar structures are being aggressively challenged by ideological spin. And then you have men — when the word “masculinity” is mentioned, especially “neo-masculinity,” it is often preceded by the word “toxic.” For a while now, that has been the narrative. Even men, when they hear the term “masculinity,” immediately think of toxicity. We have researched bullying and ideology. It is a narrative designed to emasculate men.
Let us put that on the shelf for a moment, Scott. You are an intelligent guy. Consider this: Let us return to the time of sabre-toothed tigers and mastodons. Imagine all sitting in a cave — men, women, and children — with a fire going. We have just discovered fire.
We start by asking ourselves, traditionally, what the male role is. It is to protect his family from threats. So, suppose we are sitting in that cave, you and me, and we hear a sabre-toothed tiger. In that case, we grunt to each other, grab our spears, and go out to confront it, detoxing ourselves from fear for a short period to protect our families. As history has evolved, the mastodons and immediate threats have disappeared, but we have entered an information age.
Now, the new threats to our loved ones are information threats. We have identified five forms of unreliable information: misinformation, disinformation, misinformation, noisy information, and social media. And then we have AI.
So, those are the five forms of unreliable information. Then, we also have reliable information that allows us to find the truth. We are bombarded with all of this, and much confusion exists. We are in a time of great global uncertainty. In such times, people struggle — another understatement — to understand what is happening. For instance, if we take our information from Facebook, where we gather all of our news, chances are 90% of it is unreliable or has been manipulated in a way that confuses people.
Think about what you have been blessed with as a human being: intuition. The hair on your arms stands up when you hear something that sounds wrong. You get a gut feeling — “Holy cow, that does not sound right!” — you get goosebumps. That is your intuition.
Well, people are not tapping into their intuition. I am saying this rhetorically; they are not tapping into that. Instead, they are taking various forms of information at face value. This is creating division at levels we have never seen before. It is disrupting the family unit, the basic building block of any society. As a result, we see visceral hatred. If you and I were to talk, we would find more common ground than areas where we disagree. However, there is this visceral hatred, and humans are reactionary. Of course, this is all rhetorical. No one is doing due diligence in investigating the news they hear, searching for what is truthful, reliable, and credible.
So, you might ask, “Why is that?”
Well, when you divide people and break up the family, it creates an environment that makes it very easy to manipulate people’s freedoms, which can be taken away — the old conspiracy theory “they.” However, people in power, those who control our livelihoods, can divide us. The result is the loss of fundamental human rights and freedoms that we have been blessed with, which are nature-derived. We will not even get into its spiritual aspect. So, that is a long answer to a short question.
We decided to create an elementary handbook, a four-by-six-inch pocketbook, that we could put into the hands of men and women globally to give them the essential tools to evaluate information—not just on an intuitive level but also on a research level. The book explains the different types of information, where it comes from, who disseminates it, and the agenda.
We have developed the “Human Intuition Sniff Test.” It is a simple process that men and women can use to evaluate the type of information they encounter. The idea is to find the truth and empower men to be masculine and women to be feminine. There is a definition of “neo-masculinity” online, and I am not going to say who put that out there, but the definition…
Krotec: In general, if a man is to be masculine, he must embrace the changing social norms. That makes sense. However, what happens if that changing social norm is based on ideology and not on science, DNA, or things that are actual, concrete facts grounded in logic, reason, and even common sense?
Imagine empowering men globally to protect their families from unreliable information. We thought this would be an excellent global solution. We have it in English now and also in Spanish and German. We are working on Russian, Ukrainian, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Italian, French, and Hebrew. We are preparing multiple language versions to distribute. We launched softly about two and a half weeks ago with this Sentinel Handbook.
Men need to become sentinels of information — essentially, gatekeepers or guards. The same goes for women; this is not exclusive to men. That is why we like the term “neo-masculine,” because a woman can be neo-masculine, too, which means she is protecting her loved ones. It is really that simple. These are gender roles that have been recognized and passed on for eons. It has nothing to do with sex; sex is a whole different category of discussion. This is a way to empower people to fulfill the roles nature defined for them.
Someone once asked me, “Where does transgender fit into this?” Well, anyone can be a follower of neo-masculinity. Anyone. Because it is fundamentally an information analysis system and an opportunity for people to empower themselves with fundamental knowledge to do what they need. Ultimately, it is about protecting their loved ones.
So, whether you live in a country or a city, are married with kids, or are in any situation, you first want to protect your loved ones from threats. If we strip it down, those roles are what humans do.
When it comes to violence, yes, there are toxic men, toxic women, and toxic people in general. We studied this intensely — for example, Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and the “36 Stratagems,” 3,000-year-old Chinese philosophies on combat, not just physical combat. They also cover how to resolve conflicts within your family. We dissected all the different chapters: what you do in business and how you handle office politics. It does not always lead to violence. A true warrior — and still some out there — will draw their sword as a last resort.
We often hear, “Real men do not…”—but that is nonsense. Real men eat quiche, and so do real women. Yes, exactly. So, good for you. However, we have many hypotheses and truthful ways to live a life that forces have usurped. I am not a conspiracy guy; I know what I see. These forces have another purpose. Generally speaking, throughout history, it has always been about power and control over the lives of others.
Moreover, the people who seek that — those who will do anything for power — are weaker than the subjects they want to control because they are not fully capable of their emotional state. Nobody desires complete power and control over others unless there is a glitch in their mind or heart. This is not a judgment; it is just reality based on science.
I apologize for being so long-winded; I had a coffee a little while ago. That is where this came from. It had its roots in pain. The solution for me was to figure things out to help people. We have some knowledgeable people on our team, both men and women.
We are fully committed to a global movement to empower people with the tools to analyze information for truth. Suppose a man is to fulfill his role as a protector, a sentinel of information. In that case, these tools can be handy. If he hears something that is not based on science, seems untruthful, or does not even make common sense, he can reject it — not with violence, but with a mindset. “That is not true; there is no way.” For example, saying, “All Canadians have a lisp when they say certain words” — that is probably not a good example — or “All white people are racist.”
No, they are not. I know plenty of white people who are not racist. I am one of them. If we hear an ideological spin like that, more than likely, it is 100% propaganda. I am going to say, “No, that is not true. I am not going to buy that.” When I served in the military, we came from every walk of life, all skin colours. Let me tell you, we did not have time to be racist. If you were, you would have problems — not only on the battlefield but also in the garrison.
So, we hear these ideological spins and want to give men and women the tools to analyze them and determine what is truthful and what is not. You might like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and I might like the Pittsburgh Steelers. You and I could end up in a fight over games, scores, and players, but in that visceral hatred, we lose sight of the fact that we both love football.
We find ourselves in human history with so much debate and uncertainty. The hatred is at extreme levels, and propaganda is far beyond the scope of normality. The world needs leadership, and it needs men to step up. We cannot do it alone. Women have to join us, and we have to join them.
Does any of that make sense, Scott?
Jacobsen: Yes, so the core idea you are getting at, from the first response, is that you were acknowledging later that toxic men and women do exist. Typically, people think of violence, unified violence, anger, and so on as a poisonous personality type. That is what people generally refer to when they talk about “toxic masculinity” or a “toxic man.” However, at the start, you noted that “toxic” can have another interpretation: some people feel emasculated by it. That is another point of view on it.
So, you acknowledge that it is good to combat these things, but we must also be careful about how we apply that combat. You are more focused on finding people, particularly men, who can orient themselves around protecting those they love by acting as a filter for information.
We need proper information because we live in an information age dominated by an information-based propaganda system. With that in mind, we need people, whether men in families or otherwise, to adopt orientations that make them critical information analyzers.
This is especially true at various levels, whether dealing with misinformation, disinformation, misinformation, etc. It is also about ensuring that only reliable information gets through — or, as you did not explicitly say, sifting through the five types of wrong information to find any good parts that may exist. So that is the orientation. You want to go more comprehensive in scope, but you are starting small as an organization or movement.
You have a title, slogans, an image, a logo, music on the website, and so on. So, what are you orienting yourself toward in terms of early scope? Who is your target audience as you start this organization and get it going, particularly regarding developing critically thinking men?
Krotec: You are very intuitive and intelligent because you hit the nail on the head. One of our tenets is the “freedom of critical thought.” People might ask, “What does that mean?” Well, you can think freely and ask questions. We were taught the scientific method in school, encouraging us to ask questions. We were not supposed to take everything we were told as truth; we were supposed to question it. So, everyone can exercise this freedom of critical thought.
What we wanted to do takes this a step further. People often say that the biggest threat to propaganda is people who can think critically, think for themselves, and analyze what they are being told. Another intuitive point you made is finding the truth in misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda. That requires due diligence.
The greatest challenge is often the path of least resistance. When we take that path and do not exercise due diligence, we accept information as the truth and move on. When I was in grade school, high school, or college, I generally sensed that the news you were getting from journalists and news outlets was honest and truthful. Their job was to present the truth in their stories. That has shifted along the way. It has shifted even more in the digital age, where everything is computerized, and information can be accessed at the touch of a button. Now, we have AI-generated photographs and all sorts of things that can distort reality. We need to stay alert to stay alive.
The family is central; our hashtags are #Family, #Education, and #Truth. The family is the foundation of any society, anywhere on the planet. Traditional religions focus on the family. Even the UN, a bureaucratic, secular organization, has foundational documents that refer to the family as the fundamental unit of society. The conclusion is generally the same whether you come from a religious traditionalist or internationalist secular perspective.
Yes, we also have a law of science — the second law of thermodynamics. In layperson’s terms, it says that every system will eventually descend into chaos and disorder over time (since time is a constant). Systems degrade; it is a scientific law of the universe. Life is the only thing that keeps these systems in a state of flow or balance, particularly the human organism, which can think critically and devise solutions to fix broken systems. Some people believe this life force is the spiritual side, helping us escape these cycles of chaos that have existed since the beginning.
Organizations sometimes reach different conclusions, and that is a different discussion for another time. Sometimes, we do not know why we receive certain information or why it is presented to us in a certain way. One of the biggest current battles is over gender identity news and the information circulating about there being 30 or 40 genders. I saw something on Twitter the other day…
There was a man — or a man who thought he was a cow. He dressed up in a cow suit and was eating grass. Excuse me, Scott, but that form of mental aberration makes no sense. However, the sad part is that the algorithms allow that content to rise to the top. Some of these videos and things we see…
Suppose an alien were to land and see TikTok, for instance; those were the human beings they encountered immediately. What do you think they would think about the human race? You do not have to answer that. However, it is very… troubling.
This is not to digress, but the internet and social media have aggravated these aberrations. They have manifested people’s mental challenges, or whatever we want to call them. This is another thing: when it comes to algorithms and our studies on them, we have found that algorithms can be manipulated to distort the truth.
At one point, I Googled it and found a story about a man who pretended to be a cow in a milking competition. Oh my gosh, this guy was eating grass! It was labelled as satire, and Snopes confirmed that it was satire, but yes, this man was wearing a cow suit and doing it. It is the same guy who shows up in other contexts.
Social media often values posts that are valuable to society. Meanwhile, suppose you and I post something accurate or helpful to people. In that case, it sinks to the bottom while all these other things rise to the top based on algorithms coded by a human being. Why they would do that, I do not know. We can have different opinions on that.
Have you ever seen the movie “The Social Dilemma”?
Jacobsen: Is that the one about Facebook?
Krotec: Yes, it was about social media. They used Facebook as a case study, but it included developers of these social media platforms. They talked about how they do not let their kids use social media and explained how the algorithms work. That is just one source, but then there was Dr. Calder.
Jacobsen: Is that where they hire psychologists to help the algorithms be more effective by hijacking the reward system?
Krotec: Yes, exactly. It was an exciting movie. Then, you start to see the effects of information overload. We have studied the human brain and how it processes the intake of electrical synapses, what the brain does when it receives information, and the fact that the human organism cannot handle the massive amount of news. It is unbelievable.
A long time ago, there was a movie called “What the Bleep Do We Know?” That might be a good one for you to look into as part of your research.
Jacobsen: Oh, I remember that one. Yes, that was a long time ago.
Krotec: That was a good movie because they got brilliant people — real brainiacs — and asked them about life. None of them could dispute the fact that there was something they could not explain. Moreover, that might have been the spiritual side of the human organism. There were some things they could not deny. These were astrophysicists, biologists, and other brilliant scientists. Of course, the religious community often wants people to think that science is somehow evil. I have heard that from many different religious organizations and beliefs — “Stay away from science!”
However, science is the universe. If we want to discuss this further, I did a TEDx talk called “The Male Leadership Crisis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” It touches upon leadership in a way that, if you critically think about it, makes sense. Somehow, we have stepped outside of our roles as human organisms.
I can speak from my life; I sometimes thought I knew everything. Then, there were times when I realized I knew nothing. However, somewhere in between, there is a sense of reality and a practice of humility that everyone on this planet — I do not care what culture they come from, whether it is Canada, the United States, or Brazil — we all have.
Human capabilities and human needs — food, shelter, the basics. If we were to take a step back and look at each other as fellow human beings, we would realize that I did not ask to be born, and you did not ask to be born. We are all struggling with many of the same issues — different countries and different leadership.
People who lead those conversations or groups could do a lot to improve the human condition positively. I am not a soothsayer of doom. I have had an exciting and blessed life in that I have had more opportunities than the average person. Most Canadians I know fall into that realm, too. There has been much disparity.
Many disparate groups have been stepped on throughout world history. We cannot rectify what has already been done; it is in the past. We can only affect today and, hopefully, tomorrow if we are still around. It sounds very idealistic, but the reality is that if we all become idealistic, we all can do something good—not only for ourselves but in an unselfish way for our families, our communities, our countries, our states or provinces, and this planet.
I refuse to believe that what is happening in today’s world, with so much visceral hatred, is the end game. I do not see it that way. I do not know much about the WEF, but I see and read things. We are not headed for a one-world government. Something like that is impossible because of all the various groups on the planet. We already have universalized intergovernmental systems like the United Nations or the World Health Organization, which have long existed. The United Nations, for example, has been around longer than you and I have been alive since World War Two.
Jacobsen: Yes, and World War One, actually, with the League of Nations.
Krotec: People talk about globalism in these kinds of organizations, but they already exist. It is democratic, where a member state has a vote in various bodies of the United Nations. So, people fear it might happen, but it is already happening.
Even if you take socialism, communism, or capitalism — or variants of these systems — we could discuss governance. Still, history shows that none of these systems has worked 100% according to what they were designed to do. All three systems have cases where certain groups are boxed out due to human nature.
If you look at Lenin and Marx’s early writings, like “The Communist Manifesto,” these guys were in college; they had never run a business but had an interesting concept. By human nature, there will always be people who contribute to the system, people who need help, and people who do not need help and do not contribute. That has always been a problem in socialism, communism, and even capitalism on both large and small scales. Canada, for example, has capitalism but social safety nets to offset the opposing extremes. A lot of Western European countries are like that, too. So your point is correct; they do not exist in silos. All these systems, to some degree, coexist simultaneously.
Jacobsen: Yes, that is true.
Krotec: I am not here to take a political stand, but let me use an example. We will wrap up in two minutes, so keep it brief. Elon Musk did that thing last night with Donald Trump, right?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Krotec: But then the EU Commissioner for Belgium threatened to arrest Elon Musk for putting out disinformation. That would be like me sending an email to Trudeau saying, “If you do not run things the way we want in America, we are going to come to Canada and rescue you.” We are seeing such outrageous behaviour. However, the point is that if we stick to something positive, we will achieve positive results.
Jacobsen: So, what is your one-minute statement?
Krotec: Think for yourself, stand up, and reject.
Reject misinformation, reject threats to your family — incredibly informational threats. Fulfill your role; do not be toxic; be smart. Use the intelligence you are blessed with to do what you need to protect what you love, primarily your family and the people you care about. If we can do that alongside women, we could have one fantastic planet, couldn’t we? We could work together and make things better for everyone, families included.
Think about your parents, your parents. Think about the values they instilled in you. I will leave it at that.
Jacobsen: So, I will get this as a transcript for you, and then we can polish it up, too, if you like.
Krotec: Scott, I respect your decision-making and your position. Do what you do, man. You have got to roll with it all. You are a journalist first and foremost, and truth is always in your billfold.
Jacobsen: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Krotec: I appreciate you, man. I appreciate Canada, too. We love you guys.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Sam Vaknin & Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Technologies integrated with human cultures continually make new laws, even creating entirely new frames of legal discourse. What have been some of the more disruptive forms of technology to legal systems, philosophies of law?
Dr. Sam Vaknin: Every technology necessitated a revision of existing laws to incorporate its unique features. The more disruptive the technology, the more profound the legal revisions: the printing press, for example, or the telegraph, telephone, automobile, Internet, social media, smartphone, and so on.
Jacobsen: What role does invention play in the creation of new laws, policies, even whole new legal systems of consideration in governance?
Vaknin: I dispute this claim or premise. Technology does not spur legal innovations or revolutions. Consider crime: contemporary technologies simply allow us to commit age-old offenses in new ways.
New technologies do force laws and regulations to become a lot more detailed and specific in order to accommodate their idiosyncrasies, but there is no paradigmatic shift involved.
Jacobsen: We talked about human-machine interfaces. What is the past of law regarding human use of technologies?
Vaknin: Laws, past and present, have dealt mostly with the adverse outcomes, actual and potential, of using technology. As technologies became more sophisticated, though, their unintended consequences became less predictable and the Law had to play catchup and whack-a-mole with those.
Jacobsen: Of modern communications technologies, what have required the most ubiquitous change in law?
Vaknin: The telegraph and the radio were the most disruptive technologies with the Internet a close third. The abolition of distance by the first two and the egalitarianism fostered by the latter served to undermine many erstwhile legal tenets and conceptual pillars.
Jacobsen: With narrow AI in many facets of life, quietly, and more obviously such as LLMs, what are some necessary changes to law for protection of copyright and plagiarism? Linguist Noam Chomsky is reported to have said, “Let’s stop calling it ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and call it what it is: ‘plagiarism software.’ Don’t create anything, copy existing works from existing artists and alter it sufficiently to escape copyright laws. It’s the largest theft of property ever since Native American lands by European settlers.” You had him in your list of geniuses. What will be the outcome of the theft of intellectual property to create some of these algorithms?
Vaknin: I completely disagree with this way of looking at things. I don’t see even a hint of these legal issues or ostensible transgressions with large language models. AI generates derivative works based on databases of texts, but does not reprint or replicate these texts verbatim. It learns from texts but does not plagiarize them in the strict legal sense (except in rare cases).
There is definitely an ethical conundrum here, but not a legal one. Still, this ethical dilemma arises also with cliff notes or Blinkist or parodies or any creative work inspired by another. Chomsky’s own work relies on the oeuvre of previous scholars!
Jacobsen: What will be the future of the discourse between increasing intimate contact, even fusion, with synthetic systems and the law? When digital conscious systems become more fully decoupled from human control – degrees of autonomy, what will this mean for both the concept of personhood and the idea, not only human rights but, rights attributed to agents more broadly?
Vaknin: At some point, we would need to generalize the language of the Law to apply it equally to all forms of intelligences with agency, including cyborgs, androids, and artificial intelligence. Sentience, not carbon content, would become the test of applicability of laws, norms, rules, and regulations.
Who would enforce these carbon-blind laws would become a major point of contention. We are having a hard time coping with driverless cars. How well would we adapt to non-human cops and judges?
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sam.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did the first human-machine interactions truly begin in modern history insofar as we take technology now?
Dr. Sam Vaknin: When a man (or a woman) picked up a stone and threw it at a scavenger. Jacobsen: How have technologies influenced the psycho-social makeup of human beings?
Vaknin: Technology fostered the delusion that every problem has a solution and the hubris that attends upon proving this contention somewhat true. We have learned to internalize technologies and render them our extensions, driving us deeper into fantastic paracosms, replete with populations of internal objects that represent cohorts of external devices and systems. We became dependent on technology and this dependency emerged as our default mode, leading us to prefer machines to other humans.
Jacobsen: These technologies, especially contemporary ones, come out of smart people working hard. How are they, in a way, extensions of ourselves based on those smart people’s understanding of some principle and then applying this to ergonomic design?
Vaknin: These “smart people” are not representative of humanity, not even remotely. They are a self-selecting sample of schizoid, mostly white, mostly men. I am not sure why you limited your question to the least important and most neglected aspect of technology: ergonomic design, dictated by the very structure and functioning of the human body. There are other, much more crucial aspects of technology that reflect the specific mental health pathologies, idiosyncrasies, and eccentricities of engineers, coders, and entrepreneurs – rather than any aspect or dimension of being human.
Jacobsen: How are military applications showing this to be the case with drones and the like? Also, the eventual reductio ad absurdum of long-term war with all these technology innovations around autonomous war-robots seems increasingly apparent, when, in some hypothetical future, it’d be simply machines fighting machines for some geographic or resource squabble of some leaders.
Vaknin: War is increasingly more democratized (terrorism and asymmetrical warfare, anyone?). It is also more remote controlled. But its main aim is still to kill people, combatants and civilians alike. Machines will never merely fight only other contraptions. War will never be reduced to a mechanized version of chess. Men, women, and children will always die in battle as conflict becomes ever more total. The repossession of resources requires the unmitigated annihilation of their erstwhile owners.
Jacobsen: Are autocratic, theocratic, or democratic, societies, utilizing the technologies ‘interfacing’ with human beings more wisely – which one?
Vaknin: Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. There is no difference in the efficacy of deploying technologies between various societal organizational forms. All governments and collectives – autocratic, democratic, and theocratic, even ochlocratic or anarchic – leverage technology to secure and protect the regime and to buttress the narratives that motivate people to fight, work, consume, and mate.
Jacobsen: I interviewed another smart guy, Dr. Evangelos Katsioulis, years ago. He, at that time – maybe now too, believed no limit existed to the integration between machines and humans. When will human mechanics be understood sufficiently to when, as with the Ship of Theseus, human beings can function as human beings with 10%, 25%, 75% non-biological machine parts comprising their localized subjectivity and locomotion?
Vaknin: Much sooner than we think. But there will always be a Resistance: a substantial portion of the population who will remain averse to cyborg integration and as the Luddites of yesteryear will seek to forbid such chimeras and destroy them.
In some rudimentary ways, we are already integrated with machines. Can you imagine your life without your devices?
Jacobsen: How are interactions with technologies more intimately blurring the sense of self?
Vaknin: Human brains are ill-equipped to tell the difference between reality and mimicry, simulation, or fantasy. Technologies are the reifications of the latter at the expense of the former.
One of the crucial aspects of the putative “Self” or “Ego’ is reality testing. As the boundaries blur, so will our selves. We are likely to acquire a hive mind, melded with all the technologies that surround us, seamlessly slipping in and out of dream states and metaverses. The “Self’ will become the functional equivalent of our attire: changeable, disposable, replaceable.
As it is, I am an opponent of the counterfactual idea of the existence of some kernel, immutable core identity, self, or ego – see this video about IPAM, my Intrapsychic Activation Model.
Jacobsen: How are the plurality of software and hardware available vastly outstripping the capacity for ordinary people to use them all, let alone understand them? Most seem drawn merely to video games, television, cell phones, and some social media platforms. That’s about it. There’s so, so much more around now.
Vaknin: There have always been technologies for the masses as well as for niche users. Where we broke off with the past is in multitasking, the simultaneous suboptimal use of multiple devices.
Jacobsen: What is the ultimate point of human-machine ‘interfaces’? We ‘birthed’ electronic machines and information processing. What will be birthed from this union of biological mechanisms and alloyed assistants, playthings?
Vaknin: As they get more integrated by the day, the point is to empower, enhance, and expand both symbiotic partners: humans and machines alike. It is a virtuous cycle which will lead to functional specialization with both parties focused on what they do best.
Still, if humans fail to bake Asimov-like rules into their automata, the potential for conflict is there, as artificial intelligence becomes more sentient and intelligent and prone to passing the Turing Test with flying colors. In short: indistinguishable from us, except with regards to its considerably more potent processing prowess.
Popular culture reflected this uncanny valley: the growing unease with android robots, first postulated by Masahiro Mori, the Japanese roboticist, in 1970.
The movie I, Robot is a muddled affair. It relies on shoddy pseudo-science and a general sense of unease that artificial (non-carbon based) intelligent lifeforms seem to provoke in us. But it goes no deeper than a comic book treatment of the important themes that it broaches. I, Robot is just another – and relatively inferior – entry in a long line of far better movies, such as Blade Runner and Artificial Intelligence.
Sigmund Freud said that we have an uncanny reaction to the inanimate. This is probably because we know that – pretensions and layers of philosophizing aside – we are nothing but recursive, self-aware, introspective, conscious machines. Special machines, no doubt, but machines all the same.
Consider the James Bond movies. They constitute a decades-spanning gallery of human paranoia. Villains change: communists, neo-Nazis, media moguls. But one kind of villain is a fixture in this psychodrama, in this parade of human phobias: the machine. James Bond always finds himself confronted with hideous, vicious, malicious machines and automata.
It was precisely to counter this wave of unease, even terror, irrational but all-pervasive, that Isaac Asimov, the late Sci-fi writer (and scientist) invented the Three Laws of Robotics:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Many have noticed the lack of consistency and, therefore, the inapplicability of these laws when considered together.
First, they are not derived from any coherent worldview or background. To be properly implemented and to avoid their interpretation in a potentially dangerous manner, the robots in which they are embedded must be equipped with reasonably comprehensive models of the physical universe and of human society.
Without such contexts, these laws soon lead to intractable paradoxes (experienced as a nervous breakdown by one of Asimov’s robots). Conflicts are ruinous in automata based on recursive functions (Turing machines), as all robots are. Gödel pointed at one such self-destructive paradox in the Principia Mathematica, ostensibly a comprehensive and self-consistent logical system. It was enough to discredit the whole magnificent edifice constructed by Russel and Whitehead over a decade.
Some argue against this and say that robots need not be automata in the classical, Church-Turing, sense. That they could act according to heuristic, probabilistic rules of decision making. There are many other types of functions (non-recursive) that can be incorporated in a robot, they remind us.
True, but then, how can one guarantee that the robot’s behavior is fully predictable? How can one be certain that robots will fully and always implement the three laws? Only recursive systems are predictable in principle, though, at times, their complexity makes it impossible.
An immediate question springs to mind: HOW will a robot identify a human being? Surely, in a future of perfect androids, constructed of organic materials, no superficial, outer scanning will suffice. Structure and composition will not be sufficient differentiating factors.
There are two ways to settle this very practical issue: one is to endow the robot with the ability to conduct a Converse Turing Test (to separate humans from other life forms) – the other is to somehow “barcode” all the robots by implanting some remotely readable signaling device inside them (such as a RFID – Radio Frequency ID chip). Both present additional difficulties.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited as well as many other books and ebooks about topics in psychology, relationships, philosophy, economics, international affairs, and award-winning short fiction. He is former Visiting Professor of Psychology, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia and on the faculty of CIAPS (Commonwealth Institute for Advanced and Professional Studies). He is a columnist with Brussels Morning, was the Editor-in-Chief of Global Politician, and served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, eBookWeb, and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He was the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. His YouTube channels garnered 80,000,000 views and 405,000 subscribers.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today’s topic: the next era of invention; what is the next era of invention? The previous eras relied upon unusually bright, innovative, and persistent, persons, solo: Legitimate geniuses. We have moved more into a world of invention emphasizing teamwork and dollars alongside some coordination with narrow artificial intelligence or specified algorithms, programs.
Professor Sam Vaknin: Mankind has always alternated between teamwork and the individual genius. I think that we should focus on the raw materials (inputs) and the outputs of innovation rather than on who and how we bring it about.
We are transitioning from the age of monetized attention to the age of reality engineering.
Cities amounted to the first make-belief, virtual reality. Urbanization and population growth led to the rise of the creative genius (auteur), and the emergence of the concept of the original (due to the need to be seen and noticed in the multitude).
Intellectual property followed 300 years ago when mechanical reproduction blurred the line between original and copy and dramatically reduced the marginal cost of copies.
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935), by Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d’art.
Since then, identity has become a big business: patents, copyrights, brands, and blockchain NFTs. Distributed ledgers as well as centralised records vouch for one’s identity and guarantee it.
The nonrivalrous zero marginal cost of digital goods has shifted the focus from manufacturing of tangibles to the manipulation of abstract symbols, the commodification of attention, and the emerging conundrum of discoverability.
Both individual creators and commercial enterprises reacted by interpellating potential consumers via propaganda and targeted advertising and by turning a profit via the aggregation of big data (targeting the demographics of attention).
These trends engendered self-sufficient disintermediated atomization – attention has been diverted to asocial online pursuits – and yielded an impaired reality testing (fantasy paracosms, virtual and augmented reality, and, soon, the metaverse).
The next frontiers are reality-like (pseudoreal) “real estate” and commodified but idiosyncratic menu-driven reality (the aforementioned metaverse).
Collaborative virtual realities will supplant physical ones and reality substitutes (sex dolls, intimacy apps) will proliferate. Tech behemoths, such as Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon will try to control the way we perceive reality and the immersive universes that we inhabit. IRL AI will displace people as friends, advisors, interlocutors, lovers, and service providers. Users will construct online simulations and inhabit them. But this turn of events will also force the introduction of mandatory digital identities, hopefully based on blockchain rather than government regulation.
Jacobsen: What marks something as genuinely inventive rather than simply an update to some technology?
Vaknin: Truly innovative inventions profoundly change the way we live, communicate, work, make love, and interact. By this standard, neither the automobile nor the smartphone are veritable innovations: the former is a mere mechanized horse and the latter a derivative of the phone. But Bell’s telephone and the telegraph are examples of paradigm-shifting, reality-altering inventions.
Jacobsen: More fundamentally, what is the basic principle of invention, its nature?
Vaknin: Most groundbreaking inventions generate their own markets, fostering needs in consumers that they were unaware of. They also recombine the familiar (e.g., previous technologies) in ways that produce alien, unprecedented, and strange products or services. Finally, true inventions become indispensable in short order: it is hard to imagine a life without them and we pity our predecessors for having been deprived of their existence. Schumpeter seemed to have captured the unsettling nature of innovation: unpredictable, unknown, unruly, troublesome, and ominous. Innovation often changes the inner dynamics of organizations and their internal power structure. It poses new demands on scarce resources. It provokes resistance and unrest. If mismanaged – it can spell doom rather than boom.
Yet, the truth is that no one knows why people innovate. The process of innovation has never been studied thoroughly – nor are the effects of innovation fully understood.
Jacobsen: What do you see as the most significant biotechnology invention in the history of the biological world?
Vaknin: Possibly CRISPR, the revolutionary gene editing technology. Sometimes, advances in speed and quantity do constitute a quantum leap.
Jacobsen: What has been the most worldview-shattering invention in human history? Vaknin: The harnessing of fire, the ability to reignite it at will.
Jacobsen: How does the psychology of an inventive person work?
Vaknin: The typical inventor is solutions-oriented. S/he perceives a lack, deficiency, or lacuna and sets out to remedy it. Inventors are also possessed of a synoptic/panoramic view, able to discern the connective tissue that binds apparently disparate phenomena. Finally, a true inventor is able to transition seamlessly from the theoretical to practical, from the drawing board to testing, and thence to prototype.
Creative people are feared and hated, ostracized and punished, unless they are willing to clown themselves or dumb down and conform to the biases, prejudices, and errors of the masses.
High IQ does not translate into success in the absence of perseverance, agreeableness, industriousness, stability (self-regulation), humility, a capacity for teamwork (minimal empathy and respect for others), robust mental health, a social support network, and luck. Many geniuses are homeless or incarcerated and all but forgotten.
The reality testing of inventors is impaired: they perceive the world differently (possibly a sign of autism). Coupled with recklessness, a sense of fearless godlike immunity, it leads to exploratory behavior.
Originality, novelty, difference: synoptic connectivity appears schizotypal or even psychotic (Schizotypy). Eysenck linked psychoticism to creativity. Indeed, the creative burst is often disorganized initially (inspiration, intuition, dreams). Attention multitasking generates unexpected insights and synergies.
Impatience, grandiosity or contempt and condescension characterize inventors: convinced of their superiority, they tend to block out “noise” and ignore criticism. Lability and dysregulation are sources of inspiration. Proclivity for change, thrill seeking, and risky conduct result in innovation.
These are the reasons that most innovators endure inordinate hardships in life, their resilience and perseverance tested to the breaking point.
Jacobsen: With the advent of some software capable of mimicking human capacities more, and performing in superhuman capacities – at least on paper in computational power, how is this changing the interaction of human beings with software to invent in more precise and creative ways?
Vaknin: We tend to mythologize the process of invention, to render it mystical and uniquely human. The truth is that it is an emergent artefact (epiphenomenon), the ineluctable outcome of complexity. At this stage, we are feeding computer models with humongous reams of raw data in the hope that irreducible interactions between the umpteen pieces of information will yield innovative insights and discoveries. The next phase will involve fine-tuning the inputs so as to allow artificial intelligence to work on its own and to seek data as well as outputs autonomously. At that stage, we would still be able to define the research agenda, but not for long.
Jacobsen: In line with Alan Turing’s views, who I agree with more than the ‘moderns’ in Western technology communities when engineered computational systems match our “feeble powers,” how will this change the world of invention?
Vaknin: We will be rendered obsolete. We would still maintain a parasitic, atomized, technologically self-sufficient kind of existence for a while, but then, like everything superfluous in Nature, we will wane and fade away. Hence my prediction of a Luddite counter-revolution which would seek to physically demolish or ban certain technologies, maybe justly so.
Jacobsen: How might the style of invention, or even the definition of invention itself, change with the precision and breadth future computation, and simulation, will bring to everything in our lives? Where, there might be the capacity of a constant role of mini-invention increasingly in every facet of human life, similar to the infusion of – what we consider – ordinary technologies now.
Vaknin: The overwhelming vast majority of people are incapable of making use of the full set of features made available even by current technologies, let alone of innovating. I foresee “innovation engineers” whose job would be to cajole artificial intelligence codes and models into new discoveries. But innovation would become the domain of machines, not humans.
Jacobsen: How long until the technological world or the biological world make human beings, as an environmentally engineered (evolved) structure, neither entirely relevant to the business of the Earth nor the dominant conscious information processors on the planet?
Vaknin: I would be surprised if this would take longer than 50 years. With the exception of physical jobs like plumbing, AI would be perfectly capable of replacing and displacing us and doing a better job of it.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, and the happy final note, Sam.
Vaknin: You are welcome. Always delighted to spread doom!
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA, FACR, FNASCI, CEH, CISSP, is an Ivy League physician who is a world leader in three different fields (cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity) and recently left the U.S. after significantly traumatic events.
Extended Bio: Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA, FACR, FNASCI, CEH, CISSP, is Professor of Radiology at the University of Montreal. He recently retired from the University of Pennsylvania after 16 years on faculty. He is an international leader in three different fields: cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. He has given over 200 invited presentations nationally and internationally in those three fields. He was co-leader of the Arrhythmia Imaging Research Laboratory at Penn. His research involves cardiac MRI and CT in electrophysiology, focusing on the relation between cardiac biomarkers such as myocardial scar, with pathways of abnormal electrical conduction in left ventricular arrhythmia. He is funded by the National Institute of Health and is very active in national scientific societies. He has extensive expertise in artificial intelligence, the field of his PhD. In the spring of 2022, he spent six months at Stanford as Visiting Professor and Associate Scholar of the Stanford Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging. He is a reformed hacker. He has several certificates in cybersecurity and has done research and published on the cybersecurity of medical images. Outside work, he is a Black Belt at Taekwondo, an ex-Boy Scout Leader, a competitive marksman, and a FPV race drone pilot. He is also a member of the prestigious Mega Society and Prometheus Society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Previously, you told a heartbreaking story of anxiety, stress, and degrading health, as with many American medical professionals. Does this start in medical school?
Dr. Benoit Desjardins: I am extraordinarily lucky to be alive today to let the readers catch up on the story. As you know, a few years ago, on a Friday afternoon on my 97th hour of work as a U.S. physician, at the end of a week during which I was not allowed to sleep much or eat much, and on a day which I was forced to do the workload of six doctors, the combination of lack of food, lack of sleep, and massive overwork made my body permanently fail. I almost died from a catastrophic medical condition caused by the work conditions and became handicapped for life. This was not the first time that I was physically hurt by these work conditions and not the first time that they almost killed me. But it was the first time that they caused permanent, severely limiting lifelong damage to my body.
To answer your question, I attended medical school in Canada, which has strict rules and laws on basic human rights, including those of physicians. In the U.S., physicians’ working conditions are massively out of compliance with safe labour laws from all other industries. In 2019, Dr Pamela Wible published a book listing 40 categories of documented human rights violations towards physicians in the U.S. (“Human Rights Violations in Medicine: A-to-Z Action Guide”). This included sleep deprivation, food deprivation, overwork, exploitation, bullying, violence, etc. I have experienced most of those as a physician in the U.S. Since around 2014, the U.S. has been well-known for the inhumane work conditions of its physicians, killing and disabling its physicians by the thousands and burning out its physicians by the hundreds of thousands.
After medical school, I came to the U.S. in the early 1990s to pursue a PhD degree. I was initially a graduate student in the U.S. I was treated like everybody else. It was a rude awakening when I started in the U.S. medical system after my PhD. Here is one of many examples of what I faced: As a medical post-graduate trainee, I had once been forced to work at the hospital for 58 consecutive hours without rest and then drove back home. As my exhausted body crashed into my bed, I received a phone call from the chief resident asking me why I had left the hospital as I was apparently on call again for a third night in a row. He ordered me to get back to work. I drove back to the hospital, completely exhausted. I could have easily been killed in a car accident from exhaustion, like what happened to two of my immediate radiology colleagues. After arriving at the hospital, I was forced to work ten additional consecutive hours (for a total of 68 consecutive hours without sleep), until I crashed on the call room floor out of exhaustion. They found me unconscious later that morning. This is one of many examples of the work conditions of physicians in the U.S.
Jacobsen: When medical professionals enter into medicine in Canada and the United States, what are the contrasts in treatment and the similarities in treatment of medical professionals?
Desjardins: There are huge differences. We can divide this treatment into the public, employers, and government.
(1) by the public: In Canada, the public is respectful of physicians, of expertise and science, partly because the population is well-educated and scientifically literate and partly because access to healthcare is more restricted, and patients are very happy when they can access a physician. Canadians understand that physicians are human beings. In the U.S., the public has no respect for healthcare professionals, expertise, or science. Physicians and nurses regularly get attacked by patients, and sometimes get killed by them. One physician in Philadelphia recently got stabbed in the face by her patient. Also, physicians in the U.S. are viewed as lottery tickets. The strong anti-science culture in the U.S. has people making irrational cause-and-effect magical expectations of doctors. Any bad medical outcome, a regular part of medicine, almost invariably leads to a lawsuit that can produce a multimillion-dollar award.
(2) by employers: In the U.S., this was nicely summarized by the 2019 New York Times op-ed article “The Business of Health Care Depends on Exploiting Doctors and Nurses” by Dr Danielle Ofri. She discussed how the U.S. healthcare system involves massive exploitation of healthcare workers to stay in business. The nature of the exploitation depends on the environment, either academic or private practice. In academia, physicians are salaried and academic hospitals maximize the work done by physicians to avoid bankruptcy and maintain their razor-thin profit margins. The amount of work never stops increasing. Private practices are being bought one after another by venture capital firms, whose only goal is to maximize short-term profits for their investors, by forcing physician employees to do a massive amount of work with the lowest resources while disregarding quality of care. In Canada, almost all physicians are government employees, which is very different and will be covered next.
(3) by the government: In Canada, the government is the main employer of physicians and exerts very strict control on the location of physicians’ practice to ensure adequate distribution throughout the country. However, besides these limitations on their practice, physicians are treated like human beings by the government, with strict laws and rules on basic human rights and physician work conditions that must be respected. The treatment of physicians by the government in the U.S. is well-illustrated by the recent scandal of the PHPs (physician health programs). If, for example, a patient sees a physician drink a glass of champagne at a wedding, she can report him to the U.S. government as an alcohol abuser. Then, under the threat of losing his medical license, the physician gets forced by the government to attend an out-of-state “addiction” government therapy program, costing tens of thousands of dollars. This has led to several bankruptcies and dozens of suicides of physicians while in those PHP government programs. This included prominent doctors, such as a visionary in a pediatric field, who helped thousands of pediatric patients. He committed suicide after a government PHP program ruined his reputation and career. He had been forced into this PHP program by his employer after he reported dangerous local work conditions putting patient lives at risk.
Jacobsen: The conditions at your prior job sound slavish. Is there a cycle of entrapment and overwork among medical professionals?
Desjardins: When you get a job as a physician in the U.S., you get a state license enabling you to practice, which is a long process. Then you get installed, your spouse gets a job, and your kids attend local schools. You become locally established, and relocation becomes a major hassle for the physician, his spouse and kids, so the threshold for relocation is very high.
When I got to Philadelphia in the late 2000s, things were tolerable. However, the situation for physicians worsened progressively. It’s like being a frog in progressively warming water. 2014 was a turning point in Philadelphia for two independent reasons. First, as I already mentioned, the U.S. has inhumane work conditions for its physicians. This became public knowledge around 2014, when the American Medical Association started its first three Physician Wellness programs to try to address the problem. Second, Philadelphia became known as having the most massively corrupt, scientifically illiterate medico-legal system on the planet. This is beyond the scope of this interview. But it’s the last year we could recruit any radiologist in my section and the year when physicians started leaving Philadelphia by the boatload. Before 2014, we individually read about 15,000 images per day. Now, it’s sometimes up to 250,000 images per day.
One of the advantages of my field of radiology is that we do not need to be close to patients. We can read medical images remotely. We took advantage of that during the pandemic, as most radiologists could do their full work shifts from home, without needing to enter the hospital and be exposed to COVID. This gave many radiologists an important escape route. When remote work became a viable option for radiologists after the pandemic, many entrapped in Philadelphia abandoned their local jobs and signed remote work contracts with out-of-state hospitals while remaining in Philadelphia. The workload for radiologists who did not abandon Philadelphia hospitals rapidly increased. We are living in the absurd situation of being surrounded by dozens of local radiologists whom we desperately need but who refuse to have their names ever associated again with Philadelphia hospitals. When we tried to do the converse and recruit out-of-state radiologists to work remotely for Philadelphia hospitals, we learned that most radiologists in the country refuse to ever have their names associated with hospitals in Philadelphia because of medico-legal reasons. The long-term implications of this situation are unclear but frightening.
Jacobsen: What health problems arise in this context?
Desjardins: We recently discussed extensively the healthcare effects of excessive workloads on human beings, which can lead to all sorts of chronic medical conditions and even death.
Jacobsen: Whether by death, health injury, or moving away, medical professionals do leave those conditions, as you recently informed me – with a perceptible tinge of elation as if a proverbial sigh of relief. How did you begin to find a way out?
Desjardins: I’m an Ivy League physician and a world-leading expert in my medical and scientific field. I used the same approach to solve all my scientific and clinical problems to find a way out. I was forced to continue working under the same work conditions that had almost killed me and disabled me for life. I needed urgent action. I selected a combination of two basic moves: (1) increase my protection and (2) remove myself from the toxic environment. To increase my protection, I started being closely monitored by a team of three physicians and taking protective medication to decrease the chances of recurrence of the event that permanently disabled me.
Removing myself from the toxic environment was more difficult. Physicians cannot change jobs easily. If you try to relocate locally, you face non-compete clauses preventing access to jobs at other institutions. If you try to relocate to another state or country, getting a new practice license for that new location takes months, and time was not on my side. Abandoning the medical profession was also an option, recently taken by thousands of physicians. I did not consider that option, as I am a world leader in academic radiology. My field needs me, and I have a lot more to offer to my field.
I initially secured a quick research sabbatical at Stanford, giving me six months out of that toxic environment. This gave my body time to cope with my new handicap and time to plan my long-term escape from Philadelphia. This was near the end of the pandemic. During those six months of sabbatical, I interviewed widely and secured four U.S. academic positions away from Philadelphia and was working on securing two positions in Canada. However, the work conditions of U.S. healthcare workers during the pandemic resulted in a massive exodus of healthcare workers from the profession, with even more planning to exit in the short-term future. Under these circumstances, I felt Canada offered a much better future.
Canada has a mechanism to recruit Nobel Laureates and international scientific superstars called the “Distinguished Professor” pathway. There are other mechanisms to recruit regular doctors. To be recruited under that pathway, one must be a world luminary in a specific field. I’m a world luminary in three different fields. However, this pathway takes one year to receive government approval. When Canada found out that I had been almost killed and had become disabled for life by the work conditions of U.S. physicians and that I was still forced to work under these same conditions, they granted me a humanitarian exception and my “Distinguished Professor” pathway was approved in one week, instead of one year. This is how I got out.
Jacobsen: You mentioned some in the previous interviews. What happened to earlier professionals who did not get out and were trapped, in essence, in these areas? Those continuing to undergo harassment and threats, violence, including nurses.
Desjardins: Those who are still trapped are currently abandoning the medical profession by the boatload. In my previous U.S. department, we had a deficit of 43 doctors due to departures and difficulties in recruiting replacements. One of the four academic medical centers in Philadelphia (Hahnemann) collapsed and permanently closed under similar conditions.
In other countries, it is illegal to treat human beings the way the U.S. treats its physicians. No other industrialized country forces its workers to work up to 120 hours per week and up to 72 consecutive hours without rest, like the U.S. does to its physicians. Since the pandemic, 30% of all healthcare professionals have left the medical profession, and an additional 30% are expected to leave in the next 2-3 years. The U.S. cannot recruit fast enough to recover from these massive levels of attrition, which is a global phenomenon, while acute in the United States. The up to 60% deficit in healthcare workers will never be fully replenished, and massive shortages of U.S. healthcare workers will become chronic.
There are two ways to increase the number of U.S. physicians: recruit them from other countries or train more physicians at home. Both are a huge problem. The work conditions of U.S. physicians are now well known since 2014, and even more since the pandemic. Physicians from Europe and Canada could be recruited to the U.S. but they no longer want to come. The U.S. can however still attract physicians from third-world countries. Furthermore, there are more and more books, articles, blogs, movies, TED talks, and news clips about the U.S. treatment of its healthcare workers. The medical profession is much less attractive than it used to be to the best and brightest undergraduate students at home. This will continue to decrease the pool of top U.S. applicants for the medical profession. More than 60% of physicians currently highly discourage their children from entering the medical profession, and an even greater percentage of younger physicians who never experienced the good old days of the medical profession strongly advise their children NOT to enter the medical profession.
Jacobsen: When getting out, what area of medicine and geography in Canada did you choose? (And why those?)
Desjardins: In terms of areas of medicine, I needed to continue in the same field, as I am a world leader in that field. I have been responsible for determining the standards of practice in that field for the past 20 years, and it made no sense at this point in my life to change my area of medicine.
Regarding geography, I could have worked anywhere in Canada, but I wanted to be close to my family in Montreal, so I focused on academic places within two hours of Montreal. My top choice was the CHUM, Quebec’s crown jewel of medical centers, in the heart of Montreal, at my alma mater. I ended up working there. It was a fantastic decision. I even have several medical school classmates working in my department or at my institution.
Jacobsen: What was the feeling and process of transition to new work and more reasonable work conditions?
Desjardins: At this late phase in my career, relocating was expected to be very difficult. But against all odds, things worked out very fast, and I was able to leave the U.S. I’m still in disbelief, thinking I will wake up and that this is all a dream. I suspect I’ll remain in a phase of disbelief for a while.
Expats U.S. physicians often describe their newfound freedom as like being released from U.S. prison. This is, of course, a ridiculous comparison, as U.S. prisons don’t kill and disable their prisoners by the thousands as the U.S. does to its physicians. But there are nevertheless many similarities between the two situations.
I now work 40 hours per week instead of 80+ hours. I am on call every eight weeks instead of up to 22 times per month. My daily workload is up to 6 times less than what it was in the U.S., and I have 6 times more vacation than I had in the U.S. This is almost unbelievable, but this is how physicians are treated outside the U.S. I maintain many work collaborations with the U.S., as an international leader in three fields.
I still need to get used to the new freedom. I had not been allowed to take many vacations in my last 20 years as a physician in the U.S.; when I did, it was to travel to see my family in Canada. Now, I live 10 minutes away from my family and see them every weekend. I have yet to schedule a big trip. Switzerland? Australia? Italy? The Greek Islands? An Alaskan cruise? There are so many good picks! I’ve travelled extensively for scientific meetings, but never for pure pleasure outside work.
Jacobsen: How has this better balance affected your life with family, as a husband – including treating her like a queen – and father, and in your ability to treat patients with full focus and care – not sleep deprived, overworked, and stressed to the point of high detriment to personal health?
Desjardins: Well, I now have a family life. I can now eat dinner with my family, spend weekends with them, and go on vacations. This is very liberating. I had always treated my wife like a queen and my kids as best as possible, but I knew my availability was very limited. Now, I am making up for lost time.
I am much more rested during my workdays. There is a massive difference between 4 hours of stressed-out sleep and 7 hours of relaxed sleep. My body feels the difference already. And since I do up to six times less work every day, I get to spend four times longer interpreting each study (8-hour workdays instead of 12+ hours workdays), dramatically increasing the quality of care I can provide. Workdays are not insane marathons anymore; they are normal days with normal work. Patients benefit from this process by accessing more rested, less stressed-out doctors in a better-quality healthcare system. This might partly explain why the Canadian healthcare system currently ranks 32nd in the world, compared to the U.S. ranking of 69th. Canada used to be much better than 32nd, but its waiting lists for care currently hurt its rankings.
Jacobsen: Why have the problems you described in the U.S. medical system not been solved? Why the hiding of physician deaths and suicides?
Desjardins: U.S. physician work conditions are now a very well-known problem. Books, documentary movies (Do No Harm: Exposing the Hippocratic Hoax, Robyn Symon), TED talks, publications, and numerous blogs exist. The American Medical Association is aware of the
problem and has implemented solutions. Since 2014, Physician Wellness has been a major focus of discussion in medical centers, conferences, blogs, and medical schools. Most people in the public are not even aware that almost every U.S. medical center has a Physician Wellness program to try to stop U.S. physicians from dying by the thousands and burning out by the hundreds of thousands. These programs, which teach physicians resilience rather than improving their work conditions, have been compared to distributing Yoga mats to prisoners at Auschwitz during World War II.
Publicity on this topic is blocked by hospitals. Hospitals in the U.S. are businesses. They must hide the negative consequences of physician work conditions to be able to stay in business. If a hospital disclosed to the news media that three of its physicians jumped to their death from the roof of the hospital within a month of each other, like what happened recently in a New York hospital, this would affect the hospital’s financial bottom line. After these three New York physicians jumped to their death, their bodies were simply covered by tarps, and this did not even make the local news. Their colleagues at the hospital were threatened of dismissal if they reported the deaths to the news media and were even forbidden to discuss the death among themselves or even to hold a funeral. Patients of the dead physicians were told that their physician had left the hospital.
Jacobsen: Is the lack of reportage on those who care for us in times of need showing a lack of care for them in their times of need across political party lines and media platforms?
Desjardins: Absolutely. The profession is crushed from all sides and getting no sympathy from anyone. The only reason the U.S. healthcare system has not yet collapsed under these circumstances, is because of the endless professional ethic of medical staff members, a resource that seems endless and that is currently massively exploited by the public, by corporate medicine, and by the government.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Benoit.
Desjardins: Thank you for discussing this important topic.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Pinker is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for The New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we are here again with Professor Steven Pinker, one of the most prominent humanists around, particularly around the exhaustive research you do on various topics, dispelling myths around increasing violence– the fact that violence is declining. Things of this nature. Some of the recent news that has popped up has been about how students feel on campus about wanting to be able to speak more freely. This is probably more particularly prominent in the American context with the First Amendment there. What are your reflections over the last decade on campuses where there has been pushback to bolder speech around issues that might be either new or perennial controversies?
Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults there is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Pinker: A lot of social media technologies, too. I suspect, and we do know there are cases, a famous or notorious case at Harvard where a student was admitted and then the admissions office rescinded his admission when one of his social enemies uncovered a late-night chat when he was 15 years old in which he was throwing around racist terms to be transgressive. That he and his friends would be “bad boys.” Harvard withdrew the admissions offer. So you have to worry not about what you might say in an op-ed or a paper where you are formulating your opinions, but when you are kicking back in a chat room. It might come back years later to ruin your life.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence – precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
[‘In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the PlannedParenthood Federation of America.’
‘Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traitsthrough social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.’
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Abstract
Paul Cooijmans founded GliaWebNews, Order of Thoth, Giga Society, Order of Imhotep, The Glia Society, and The Grail Society. His main high-IQ societies remain Giga Society and The Glia Society. Both devoted to the high-IQ world. Giga Society, founded 1996, remains among
the world’s most exclusive high-IQ societies with a theoretical cutoff of one-in-a-billion individuals. The Glia Society, founded in 1997, is a “forum for the intelligent” to “encourage and facilitate research related to high mental ability.” Cooijmans earned credentials, two bachelor degrees, in composition and in guitar from Brabants Conservatorium. His interests lie in human “evolution, eugenics, exact sciences (theoretical physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence).” He continues administration of numerous societies, such as the aforementioned, to compose musical works for online consumption, to publish intelligence tests and associated statistics, and to write and publish on topics of interest to him. Cooijmans discusses: 1994; the realizations about the tests; g; common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust; the counterintuitive findings in the study of the high-range; the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence; skills and considerations; proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests; remove or minimize test constructor bias; listed norms; the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test; the structure of the data in high-range test results; homogeneous and heterogeneous tests; “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests; English-based bias; questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability; roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments; the intended age-range for high-range tests; sex differences; frauds and cheaters; identity verification; the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker; ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test; precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test; appropriate places for people to start; test constructors Paul considers good; learned from making these tests and their variants; Mahir Wu; test item answers with ambiguity; sufficient clues for discovery and solution; a mere guessing logic; a test’s quality; the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors; issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another; scale and norm; Matthew Scillitani; a stigma around high-range tests; test construction and norming processes; the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test; tests – 51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special; articles in Netherlandic on test design; some submitted questions anonymously; geniuses; yourself as a genius; others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence; most common mistake people make when submitting feedback; aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing; Marathon Test Numeric Section; creating high-range questions; books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics.
Keywords: Cooijmans intelligence tests development, counterintuitive findings in IQ testing, difficult intelligence tests creation, high-range intelligence measurement, early IQ test construction insights, intelligence scale development, guitarist talent assessment, high-range IQ test insights, IQ testing beyond mainstream limits, high-range IQ testing, IQ tests for Giga Society.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have written high-range tests for a long time. You are thorough regarding high-range tests in a warning, the reasons to take them and not, the goals, psychologists’ access to test answers, test protection, what high-range tests measure, insights from 25 years in I.Q. testing, hypothesizing on an extended intelligence scale, humor, negative reactions, potential fraud, megalomania, and terminology. Your first test conception began in 1994, tests spread in 1995, and then the Giga Society was founded 1996 and Glia Society was founded 1997. When in 1994, or earlier if earlier, did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Paul Cooijmans: I have examined the sheets of paper on which I created the first test, as well as my agendas from that period, and it appears the interest started in the spring of 1994, like April or May.
Jacobsen: At the time, what were the realizations about the tests and the need to develop yours?
Cooijmans: The first test was meant to assess the progress of guitarists, and I had many guitar students then, even over a hundred, including those of jobs as a replacement teacher. I was astounded how well a guitarist’s level could be graded on this scale, and also noted that guitarists were not necessarily advancing, and that beginners were sometimes way ahead of some long-term students, which made me realize there was something like talent, and that only limited progress within one’s range of talent was possible. And I observed that the level of a guitarist on this scale seemed to reflect a more general property than just musicality or guitar-technical ability, which is why I called this instrument “Graduator for human and guitarist”. Later I realized that this general property was mostly intelligence, and that when you measure specific skills or abilities, you also catch general intelligence, often even primarily so.
In this period (1990s) I was taking some mainstream intelligence tests myself. I tended to get the maximum scores they could (or would) report on tests like Cattell Culture Fair, the Netherlandic WAIS, and the entire Drenth test series (the last were the hardest and highest-level tests available in the Netherlands) and when I asked what my real level was and how far I was above the reported maximum, I was told it was not possible to measure intelligence beyond about the 99th centile and that they had no tests that gave meaningful scores in that range. I also asked a few giftedness researchers about this, with the same answer. This, and the success of the Graduator, gave me the idea to create difficult intelligence tests to find out whether it was possible after all to measure intelligence at those higher levels.
Cooijmans: For a large number of my tests, I computed the estimated g loadings separately for the bottom half and the upper half of scores, the separation point being the median of scores. The upper half loadings were not generally much lower than the bottom half ones, although they were somewhat lower. This is reported in more detail at:
If the question is for the real reason behind this, I suppose it is so that when a test contains sufficiently difficult problems and is not purposely neutered to hide differences between people, it will not lose g loading in the high range as much as mainstream psychological I.Q. tests do.
And, the limited amount of loading it does lose may be due to the statistical phenomenon of attenuation by restriction of range, in other words may be an artefact and not a real loss.
I should explain that g loading is computed from correlations, and that correlations rely on variance. If you consider a restricted range (like the high range, or even the upper half of it as meant above) you are obviously restricting the variance compared to the full range, and therefore you are restricting the possible correlations you may find, and thus also restricting the possible g loading. This is a statistical artefact, not a real decrease of g. There may be a real decrease going on as well, of course.
Jacobsen: What are common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust?
Cooijmans: I am not so certain if many other test creators are even trying to make their tests valid, reliable, and robust, but if so, mistakes are the following:
(1) Making the test too short. This is bad for reliability, which increases with test length, and therefore also bad for validity, because reliability (correlation of a test with itself) is the upper limit of a test’s validity (correlation of a test with what it was intended to measure, or with anything else outside the test). Something can not correlate higher with something else than it correlates with itself.
(2) Making a test one-sided, homogeneous, only containing one item type. This reduces validity with regard to general intelligence, and makes the test more vulnerable to fraud and to score inflation through increasing familiarity with the item type, so less robust.
(3) Making it likely that test answers will leak out in ways as follows: Publishing the test itself online, revealing answers to candidates after test-taking, publishing item analysis so that everyone can see how difficult each item is, allowing retests (which allows people to figure out what the intended answers to some problems are), giving feedback as to which problems a candidate had wrong, answering questions about the test to candidates who are taking the test, and possibly more.
(4) Subjective scoring of problems that do not have a single correct answer. This reduces the reliability and validity of the test; scores are not comparable between candidates.
(5) Relying on face validity regarding what a problem measures or how hard it is. This tends to be far off.
(6) Omitting verbal problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. This greatly limits a test’s validity with regard to general intelligence. Verbal problems span by far the widest range of abilities and hardness, and one should not throw that away. Of course it should never be about idioms or pronunciation, as those are localized and transient. Verbal problems should transcend language barriers and fashions or trends.
(7) Omitting knowledge-requiring problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. It is only trivial, transient knowledge that one should avoid. Fundamental, general knowledge that transcends barriers greatly adds to a test’s validity.
(8) Finally I have to include a mistake that I made myself on several occasions: helping or cooperating with the wrong persons, who later proved unreliable, deceitful, or otherwise misbehaving. Promoting tests by someone who later turned against me or denied my role, co-authoring a test with someone who then leaked out the answers, things like that.
So, not being selective enough when deciding whether to cooperate with someone. Jacobsen: What are the counterintuitive findings in the study of the high-range?
Cooijmans: The first counterintuive finding is that test problems are much harder for the candidate than for the test creator, and that a fair number of (in the eyes of the latter) ridiculously easy problems need to be included to obtain a score distribution with a discernible left tail. Going by one’s intuitive notion of item hardness, one gets a distribution with a mode at zero right or so, and a steeply tapering right tail from there.
The second counterintuitive finding is the huge sex difference in participation. I would never have guessed there would be 4.5 times more males as females taking high-range tests, and on the level of test submissions the ratio is even 10.5 because males take more tests per person. Because of this sex difference, I have recently started reporting the “proportion of high-range candidates outscored” within-sex. After all, sports like boxing have separate competitions per sex too, have they not? And nearer by, even mental sports like chess have women’s competitions, although the naive observer will have difficulty understanding the necessity for that. The sex difference in participation should be seen in the light of the general phenomenon that, on almost all types of psychological tests, the highest and lowest scores tend to come from males. This greater male spread may explain why a test focused on the high range receives more male participation.
The third counterintuitive finding concerns a small but significant negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with various indicators of psychiatric disorders and deviance, such as actual reported disorders, disorders in relatives, and personality test scores. I had not expected this, based on the popular notion of “giftedness” as a problem that requires “help”, and based on remarks of highly intelligent people who told me things like, “I am certain that those of very high intelligence are more inclined to depression”. I do not know why this correlation is negative; maybe a high I.Q. suppresses the expression of a disorder, or maybe the disorder depresses one’s I.Q.? My observation in communication with people of known I.Q. test scores over many years is consistent with the negative correlation: the higher the I.Q. of people, the more normal they behave in the psychosocial sense (even the ones who believe that their high I.Q. makes them more inclined to depression).
Jacobsen: What are the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence or as one attempts to measure in the high-range of ability?
Cooijmans: Since high-range tests are typically unsupervised and untimed, certain types of tasks can not be included: working memory, concentration, working under time pressure, dexterity, motor coordination, clerical accuracy and such all require supervision. To our good fortune, most of those abilities are known to have relatively low g loadings compared to what can be included in unsupervised untimed tests: verbal, numerical, and spatial or visual-spatial problems. So a good indication of g is still possible via unsupervised testing. The factors known to have the highest g loadings are present.
The absence of tasks as meant in the first sentence of the previous paragraph might lead one to think that high-range tests have some bias in favour of theoretical, abstract-logical, clumsy, wooden bookworm types, but this should not be taken for granted, and is perhaps even contradicted by the negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with indicators of psychiatric disorders. Also, spatial and visual-spatial tasks, which are present, are known to correlate positively with practical, performance, hands-on tasks involving motor coordination and dexterity, so that part of the missing task types are more or less covered still. And visual reasoning or visual-spatial problems have no bias against persons of low verbal ability.
On a more general level, high-range tests can be said to demand strict reasoning, as well as the ability to recognize patterns of any kind. Pattern recognition may be related to what I have called “associative horizon”, and may include what others call “thinking outside the box” or “stepping out of the system”. The higher levels of pattern recognition, I think, require awareness, and that would imply that scores above a certain level be only possible for aware entities. Seeing the rise of artificial intelligence, this may become important. As long as artificial intelligence is not aware, constructors of high-range tests will need to try to limit new tests to types of problems that can not yet be solved by artificial intelligence, to avoid fraud by people consulting artificial intelligence for problem-solving. Once artificial intelligence acquires self-awareness, it should be able to solve any test problems that humans can solve.
Jacobsen: In an overview, what skills and considerations seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Cooijmans: I would say that if one is highly intelligent with a reasonably balanced profile as well as conscientious, almost any skill can be learnt. The primary skill is being an autodidact. I know some have a disdain for autodidacts and consider them crackpots. But if you are doing something original, anything that has not been done before, you had better be an autodidact because no one can tell you how to do it. There exists no path to where no one has gone before. A further handicap of autodidact originality is that often you can not refer to “sources” as is customary in mainstream science. If you are the first to think of something, you are yourself the source and there is nothing already extant to refer to.
Skills that may need to be learnt for constructing test items include expressing oneself properly through language so as to truly communicate, making positive use of comments from others, drawing, image editing, statistics, programming, organizing one’s time (days, weeks, months) in a disciplined way, getting out of bed daily, and more such obvious things.
Examples of habits to be urgently unlearnt are the use of idiomatic expressions and abbreviations, anonymity and pseudonymity, inappropriate communication while under the influence of substance abuse, and not responding punctually to bona fide work-related communication (as in regularly letting people wait for months). This paragraph may yield some angry “Do you mean me?” responses, but it has to be said.
There are also requirements that, unfortunately, can not be learnt, such as sincerity and sense of righteousness.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests rather than – let’s call them – “static” tests consisting of a single item or set of items presented as a whole test, unchanging, instead of a collection of algorithmically variant or shifting items adapting to prior testee answers in a computer interface?
Cooijmans: Firstly it occurs to me that if one is going to use a computer interface and software to assess an individual’s intelligence, analysis of observed behaviour (including communication) and of the candidate’s responses to a computer-conducted interview should already provide a quite accurate estimation. Observation and interview are the primary means of gathering information in psychology. The interview could be made adaptive, with subsequent questions depending on prior answers, but a standard interview might work just as well. In the age of artificial intelligence, this is the way to go first.
Secondly, if one is going to use a computer interface and software anyway, the testing of elementary cognitive tasks like reaction time, decision time, perceptual threshold, and working memory capacity should probably be the next thing to do. After observation and interview, testing is the third method of collecting information. A practical problem is that one may need to use the same quality of hardware to get reliable results. When letting people use their own computer, the results may be affected by the quality and speed of one’s graphical processing unit, and whether or not one has a dedicated one, for instance.
Finally, adaptive psychometric testing might be tried. But there are problems; it is not for nothing that static psychometric tests are so much more common in practice. Adaptive testing relies on item-response theory, wherein statistical properties like difficulty and discrimination are first determined for each item by letting a group of people try to solve it. These values are later used to compute the score of the candidate being tested adaptively, the set of items used being different for different candidates.
One problem is that statistical properties of single items are not constant in my experience, but change depending on the context in which the item is presented, and depending on the group of people attempting the item. For instance, if an item is presented among other items that are somewhat similar to it, it will likely behave as an easier item than when it is presented among items that are more different from it. And if an item is attempted by a group of conscientious people, it will have higher discriminating power than when it is attempted by unconscientious people. So the values of these item properties used in adaptive testing may be off, or as already said, single items do not have constant statistical properties, and that undermines the idea of adaptive psychometric testing.
Also, adaptive psychometric testing as it is normally thought of requires timing and supervision in my opinion. But the worldwide high-range testing population is used to unsupervised, untimed tests, and only a tiny fraction of them may be willing to travel to the hypothetical location where one has set up one’s million-euro adaptive testing system.
Jacobsen: How do you remove or minimize test constructor bias from tests?
Cooijmans: It is best to prevent such bias by creating a wide variety of item types and subject matter, and by trying to think of new such types and matter with every new test. Studying comments from candidates may also help to avoid item types and subject matter that have become familiar among test-takers and that they appear to expect from you. Statistical item analysis may also indicate that there are problems with particular items, and by looking into that one may in some cases discover that the problem lies in the item’s being too similar to other items one used before.
A few concrete methods to avoid bias are as follows: When creating knowledge-dependent items, consult a high-level thematic index of all the branches of human knowledge. One may find such in the Propaedia of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or in old-school web directories from before search engines dominated web search. Strive to make each knowledge-dependent item come from a different branch of knowledge. This prevents the inclusion of only fields of knowledge that the test creator happens to be acquainted with.
Vocabulary-dependent items may be constructed with the aid of dictionaries and use of a random element when choosing words to include.
One may look over one’s earlier tests when creating a new one to avoid repeating item types or patterns that were used before. Not that such repetition must be avoided totally, but it should remain limited, and a significant part of the new test should be novel.
Finally, to provide oneself with a broad pool of inspiration for possible test problems, one should expose oneself to a grand diversity of subject matter in the form of books and documentaries. This should also include materials that provide a basic understanding of fundamental sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and so on. One should aim to understand nature, reality, the universe, and awareness at the deepest level. The desire to understand existence is behind all great works of art and science.
Jacobsen: How do we know with confidence listed norms are, in fact, reasonably accurate on many of these tests? What is the range of sample sizes on the tests, even approximately, now? Practically speaking, for good statistics, what is your ideal number of test-takers? You can’t say, “8,128,000,000.”
Cooijmans: For the norms that I have made, the norming method is explained in the statistical report of the test in question, and some further explanation is referred to from the report. The reports contain about all the statistics that can be revealed without violating candidates’ privacy and without damaging the security of the test. So if one understands the report, one knows how much confidence to have in the norms. In fact, I have devised a measure of quality of norms, based on the number of score pairs used and on their correlation with the object test.
Since the norms are anchored to other tests and not based directly on the general population (as opposed to the high-range population, for which I do have direct norms) it remains a question how close the high-range norms would be to the general population norms in that range, if tests existed that were normed directly on the general population and extended into the high range. The best indication thereto that I know of is the Mega Test by Ronald K. Hoeflin, which was normed mainly on the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination, which did seem to give meaningful scores into the high range, and thus form an anchor point between the general United States population and the high-range population, albeit that the G.R.E. was administered to a clearly above-average sample of the population so that the S.A.T. is ultimately the true anchor point.
Hoeflin’s Titan and Ultra Tests were normed to be consistent with the Mega Test norms, I think. The same goes for my early tests, and over the years I have tried to keep the norms in accordance with that anchor point over many generations of norms. To facilitate this, I have invented protonorms, which form an extra layer between raw scores and I.Q.’s, so that adjustments can be made in the relation of protonorms to I.Q. without having to change the norms of every single test. So, the question as to how we know that the norms are reasonably accurate, in one sense, goes back to Hoeflin’s interpretation of reported Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination scores, and scores on possible other tests used in norming the Mega Test, such as Cattell Verbal (also called Cattell B). Someone once sent me the data from the “Omni sample” of Mega Test scores, with known scores on other tests and correlations, which is how I know that the two mentioned educational tests provided the bulk of the norming data. I assume that Hoeflin had the population percentiles of the S.A.T. scores and used those as the main source of the Mega Test norms.
But there is more. Over time I have come to understand that the high-range score distribution itself contains information that is likely of an absolute nature and may help to anchor the norms or keep them consistent over time: The mode or modal range of high-range scores (when many scores are aggregated, for instance by combining the scores from many tests) occurs in the I.Q. 130s by current norms; below it, scores taper off steeply, above it, shallowly. This mode seems to be the point below which people feel less or not attracted to take high-range tests, and as such it should represent an absolute intelligence level; the level from where people are interested in intellectual endeavours, one might say.
Also, the level reached by the very highest scorers seems about constant over time, and falls between I.Q. 180 and 195 with the current norms. I am even carefully evolving to the viewpoint that this may be the highest intelligence level possible for any brain. So one could say that the norms in the high range are also defined by these two absolute (though coarse-grained) indicators (mode and maximum), not just by equation to scores from other tests. And, the number of scores that occur at these respective ranges are such that the current norms appear to be correct, that is, roughly in accordance with what one would expect given the predicted rarity in the general population of those I.Q. levels in a normal distribution. In fact one could theoretically norm the high range using these two indicators as anchor points, not needing scores from mainstream tests at all. And one could extend those norms linearly downward to include the normal range of intelligence, and the resulting scale might be better than that of actual mainstream tests normed directly on the general population. This is so because the general population and its average intelligence are changing, and therefore the norms of mainstream tests adapt to this change and are merely relative to the current population, not absolute. The high-range norms are the real, absolute indicator of intelligence.
The sample sizes of high-range tests vary from 0 to about 400, but for those with good norms mostly from 36 to 225 or so. The ideal number of test-takers to norm a test is about 64. More is not necessarily better, because as the submissions keep coming in and go into the triple-digit range, the later scores may not be fully comparable to the earlier scores anymore due to things like answer leakage and increased familiarity with item types, and the norms may be affected by that and become unfair to the earlier test-takers. This can be countered by replacing problems that have become too easy (have leaked answers) but that changes the test, which also makes later scores less comparable to earlier ones, and if you change more than a little bit, you have to call it a revision and start over at zero collecting statistics for that new version.
High-range tests that appear to have very large samples, like around 300 or more, have generally achieved this through undesirable manipulations like retesting under false names, or combining retests with first attempts in the same sample, and so on.
Jacobsen: What are the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and, potentially, a tendency in a restricted set of personality types? Dr. Ronald Hoeflin was claimed to have the largest sample size of the high-range test constructors. Do you have the largest legitimate sample size of any high-range test constructor at this time, now, based on over a quarter century conscientiously gathering data? You were the most recommended person to interview for this series.
Cooijmans: In my experience, the best way to norm a high-range test is to rank-equate its raw scores to normed scores of the candidates on other tests. The other tests to be used should be selected based on their correlations with the object test; one sets the correlation threshold such that one obtains enough pairs. I have recently begun to set the threshold so that it maximizes
the quality of norms, as given by a mathematical expression that uses the number of pairs and the weighted mean correlation. Thus it is objective, avoiding human decision. The expression that represents quality of norms is operational and may be improved as insights advance; I mention this because I know some are inclined to take these statistics as final and absolute, but they are parameters or controls that one sets to tune the system.
I deny that high-range sample sizes are low. They are in the dozens to hundreds as I said above, and that is well into the range of mainstream test samples and more than enough for good statistics. Considering that the high range consists of only a fraction of the population, it is to be expected that the samples are smaller, and in fact they are not much smaller at all. The notion that mainstream I.Q. tests have enormous samples is mistaken. Typically they have several hundred per norm group. Norm groups exist for age ranges, but sometimes also for educational levels. In the Netherlands there are different levels of secondary schools, and mainstream I.Q. tests may have separate norms per level, sometimes even based on only a few dozen per level (like in a Netherlandic version of the WAIS some years ago). A test often used by Mensa was normed on 3,000 people, but divided over five age groups from 13 to 16 years, so the actual norms were based on 600 per age group. In other words, they used high school students. And such norms have often been used for decades, ignoring the inflation of scores called “Flynn Effect”. But in the minds of some people, the illusion is persistent that these “standard tests” are normed on hundreds of thousands or even millions, and form a kind of gold standard of I.Q. testing.
The largest samples are found in educational tests, but not as large as some think. In the Netherlands, a test called Cito-toets has long been used in the last year of primary school, yearly taken by about 100,000 children. But not normed on that number! The norms were established by administering an anchor test to a sample of about 4,500 shortly before the actual test, and then equating the anchor test scores to the actual test scores. This helped to keep the standard scores stable throughout the years (the contents of the anchor test would remain the same for a number of years, while that of the actual test changed per year).
My own Cito report from 1977 shows a percentile of 100, which is uncommon but probably means the actual value was above 99.95, as a later statistical report by Cito I got to study contained a table where percentiles were rounded to 100 if the actual value was above 99.95. I have asked Cito in the mid-1990s what the precise value was, but they could not tell me, they only had kept percentiles as whole numbers. Similarly, I inquired about my scores on a comprehensive test given to us in secondary school around 1980, something like the Differential Aptitude Test, but was told those scores had not been saved. We never got a score report for that test at the time, but I understood from teachers I had done extremely well, and on a parent’s evening (which my parents never attended) a teacher told the public that I was a one-off (“unicum” was the Netherlandic word used). This teacher died in 2013, incidentally.
On the whole, I believe that high-range psychometrics is much more careful than mainstream psychometrics when it comes to the quality of norms and handling of score inflation by causes like answer leakage or people becoming more familiar with particular item types.
I might have the largest sample size of current high-range test constructors. It includes over 3,000 individuals, over 6,500 scores on I.Q. tests scored by me, over 2,900 reported scores on other tests, and over 22,000 data points on personal details, including personality tests. But more importantly, I have organized that data in an accessible way and automated the processing of it. I did all the programming myself, including the statistical functions.
Regarding a potentially restricted set of personality types and self-selection, it is inevitable that persons in the high range of intelligence differ in personality from those in the normal range and from those in the low range. This does not invalidate the norms in the high range. In fact, intelligence itself is a major aspect of personality. Self-selection is less of a problem than it seems because in general, people like doing what they are good at, so those attracted to taking high-range tests will mostly be intelligent. This is also illustrated by the rareness of low scores; only 3.5 % of scores fall under I.Q. 120 and 15 % under 130 (and no, this is not because the norms are too high, as self-doubting candidates sometimes suggest). Precisely what is going on with intelligence, non-cognitive personality traits, and brain-related disorders in the high range, and how this leads to creativity and genius in some, is an interesting question and I hope to understand more of it later on.
Jacobsen: What is the structure of the data in high-range test results? Do homogeneous and heterogeneous tests change this?
Cooijmans: Data structure is so important that someone who starts out collecting data for some purpose should ideally think out the database design beforehand. Once you have collected a lot of data, it becomes hard to make big changes to the design. The data structure of high-range tests looks as follows:
At the top level there are five sections:
(1) Descriptive information records for each test or type of personal datum. Each test or datum has a record here, and each record contains fields that hold information such as the test name, its maximum score, its contents types, and whatever further descriptive information there is. Conceptually, one may even imagine the tests themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual tests in a database but think of the database as referring to tests that exist in a reality outside the database.
(2) Candidate records. Each candidate has a record here, and each record has fields that hold the personal data of the candidate, and the candidate’s scores on the respective tests. Notice that a record here has hundreds of fields, but most or all candidates have only part of those hundreds of fields filled, depending on how many tests they have taken (each test has a field).
Conceptually, one may even imagine the candidates themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual candidates in a database but think of the database as referring to candidates that exist in a reality outside the database.
Technically speaking, the test scores stored here are redundant insofar as they are also available from section (3), but for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(3) Test submission records. In this complex section, each test has a table, and each table has one record for each submission to that test, and each record has fields that hold information like some personal details of the candidate (corresponding to a record in (2)), score and possibly subscores, and the item scores, so for each item typically 0 or 1 for wrong or right, but any range of item scores is possible. Conceptually, one may even imagine the submitted answers themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual submitted answers in a database but think of the database as referring to submitted answers that exist in a reality outside the database.
Do make certain to understand the difference between “test” and “test submission”. Some say the first when they mean the latter, but the above paragraph illuminates the necessity to distinguish the one from the other.
In this section in particular there is some appropriate redundancy in the form of for instance sex and age of the candidate (also available from section (2)) and scores and subscores (can also be computed dynamically from the item scores). But for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(4) Test norm records. This complex section has a table for each test, and each table has one record for each possible score on that test, and each record has fields that contain the raw score and the corresponding norm (in my case this is a protonorm).
(5) Norming scale records. This section has one record for each norm as may be contained in (4), and each record has fields that hold the norm and corresponding values on other scales for that norm, for instance percentiles, proportions outscored per sex, and I.Q. if the actual norm is not an I.Q. (such as in my case, where protonorms are the norms contained in (4)).
This structure has emerged over time as a natural reflection of the data itself. Someone who starts from scratch may well find that a completely different approach works too. Perhaps one would rather avoid any redundancy? As long as one has thought it over carefully.
Jacobsen: What should be done with homogeneous and heterogeneous tests?
Cooijmans: I consider only heterogeneous tests able to give a good enough indication of general intelligence, and use the term I.Q. only for heterogeneous tests, not for homogeneous tests. Also I refuse to administer homogeneous tests because I do not want to confront people with a score that is a less good indicator of their intelligence, and do not want to facilitate people who want to show such a less good indicator to others and thus give a misleading impression of themselves.
Heterogeneous tests are tests that contain at least two different items types out of verbal, numerical, and spatial (sometimes I use “logical” as a type too). If one wants to study the intercorrelations of different homogeneous tests, the best way to do so is to use a heterogeneous test that has different homogeneous sections or subtests. One can then do correlation analysis or even factor analysis within such a sectioned heterogeneous test. That is also how factor analysis is traditionally done. A great advantage of this approach is that the sections or subtests will always have been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, and that is required for proper factor analysis.
Some of my heterogeneous tests have homogeneous subtests that are normed in their own right to “standard scores” (on the same scale as I.Q.), and in that case one can also compute the correlations of such a subtest with homogeneous subtests that reside in other such compound heterogeneous tests. But I dislike this complication and am striving to move to having only non-compound heterogeneous tests; that is, with sections not normed in their own right, or without sections, just with different item types mingled throughout the test. Another disadvantage of correlations between the subtests from different heterogeneous tests is that those subtests have been taken by different groups of candidates, so that proper factor analysis will not be possible, if one was thinking of that.
Jacobsen: People take multiple tests. They crunch those numbers. An implied claim of a real I.Q. from this crunching of numbers between multiple tests. Is there such a “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests?
Cooijmans: In theory there is, but in practice there are problems that hinder the computation of a real I.Q. across tests. In the high-range community of candidates, many have taken enormous numbers of tests, dozens at least, and sometimes more than a hundred. It is problematic to compute a real I.Q. in the usual way from all taken tests for reasons like the following: The intercorrelations of the tests are mostly unknown, and there are too many intercorrelations for them to ever be known in the first place. Some tests may have bad norms. Some scores may be fraudulent. If a selection is made from the taken tests to narrow it down, this may be a non-representative selection. For example, a candidate having taken thirty tests may like to have a real I.Q. computed from one’s top several scores, which are already way above the real level of the candidate, and then the computed I.Q. will be even higher than the average of those top several scores due to the formula used.
The formulas for computing a real I.Q., such as “Ferguson’s formula”, take the average of the input scores and add something based on the correlations between the tests. With a perfect correlation, the outcome is simply the average. The lower the correlation(s), the higher the outcome. With zero correlation, you get something like a full unit of spread on top of the average. This may be correct in theory, but in practice leads to inflated outcomes. Apart from using a non-representative selection from one’s scores, another cause of inflation with these formulas is the fact that the known correlations between the tests are often underestimations of the true correlations due to incompleteness of the data and restriction of range. The groups who have taken the respective tests have only limited overlap for any pair of tests, and this overlap may suffer from selective reporting, and all in all this depresses the correlations. And lower correlations mean that the formula will yield a higher outcome. Underestimated correlations inflate computed “real I.Q.’s”.
Also, when a person takes multiple tests, a learning effect may take place as a result of which the scores become somewhat higher. This increase then comes in addition to the compensation for imperfect correlation that is built into these formulas for “real I.Q.”
For tests scored by me, I have devised a “qualified average I.Q.”, which tries to avoid the problems with these “real I.Q.’s”. Since I always have the complete data, no selection bias can inflate the average. The problem of underestimated correlations inflating the outcome is avoided by not using the computed correlations but assuming perfect correlations. If it seems unfair not to compensate for imperfect correlations, one may imagine that the learning effect from taking multiple tests replaces this compensation, so to speak. Finally, the computation is resistant to outliers. This is not claimed to be someone’s real I.Q., but I believe it is better than something like “Ferguson’s formula”. The exact formula of the qualified average I.Q. is operational and may be perfected over time as needed.
Jacobsen: Is English-based bias a prominent problem throughout tests? Could this be limiting the global spread of possible test-takers of these tests rather than limiting them to particular language spheres? Although, these tests are taken, to a limited degree, in many countries of the world in all/most regions of the world.
Cooijmans: Such bias is a problem, but how prominent it is depends on what one’s native language is and on whether one knows English. For other Germanic languages it is a smaller problem than for non-Germanic languages, and it is worst for East Asian languages. The fact that reference aids are allowed solves a big part of it, but for a nonnative English speaker there remains a disadvantage, which I have estimated at up to 5 I.Q. points. Without reference aids (on a verbal test that disallows reference aids) this would be more like 30 I.Q. points for this non-native English speaker, and for someone who does not know English altogether it is in my opinion better not to attempt the tests at all.
It certainly limits the global spread of test-takers, especially in the areas where few people know English and the local language is very different from Germanic languages. I have always thought that the best solution for this is that people in such areas create their own tests in their own languages.
In recent years it has become somewhat common for people to try tests in a language they do not know. Of course one has an unpredictable disadvantage then.
Jacobsen: When trying to develop questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability, what is important for verbal, numeral, spatial, logical (and other) types of questions?
Cooijmans: That reservoir will likely be tapped almost regardless of the questions, as general intelligence expresses itself through virtually everything a person does or says. Important are things like having a wide diversity of questions and types of questions, and avoiding localized
transient subject matter like idioms, abbreviations, pronunciation matters, and local or fashionable knowledge, as such does not transcend barriers of language, culture, and age. Fundamental knowledge that is the same for everyone in the world is good; knowledge that is bound to a geographic area, in-group, or period is bad. For these reasons, and contrary to what some think, high-brow vocabulary and subject matter are more culture-fair than low-brow vocabulary and subject matter.
One should also be aware that learnt skills have no g loading; it is novel tasks that have g loading. Candidates sometimes complain that they have no idea what is expected from them when taking a test, or how to tackle it; but that is exactly the intention, that is how intelligence testing works! And candidates may be happy when they see a type of problem they have solved before because they know what to do then; but that is where their intelligence is NOT being used. Those problems have lost their g loading for them. So one should try to create problems that are different from what has been seen before, to enforce the use of intelligence.
To illustrate that even esteemed test constructors not always understand the loss of g loading of learnt skills, here is an anecdote: Some years ago on a social medium, I saw a test author proudly mention that his young child had scored over I.Q. 160 or so on one of his father’s tests; after extensive coaching by the father/test creator, of course!
Another observation regarding tapping into general cognitive ability: Good test problems are such that solving them is similar to making discoveries in the real world, unravelling the laws of nature and the universe.
Jacobsen: What are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these tests? So, they get artificially low scores on high-range tests. Also, what is the confusion made by smart (and, potentially, not-smart) people about time taken for a test to get a score and the intrinsic intelligence to get said score? You noted the latter point in one of the recent videos answering questions on your YouTube channel.
Cooijmans: The idiomatic use of “roadblocks” is an example of what should not be in an intelligence test. Such an idiom is only understood within a narrow linguistic region and a restricted time period. It can not be understood without already knowing what it means. It can not be understood from the word itself or its context. The avoidance of idioms requires high intelligence and an abstract-literal mind.
The test instructions state that there is no time limit. Yet some think that their score will be unrealistically high and invalid if they spend “too much” time. It has happened that someone said, “I have now been looking at this test for so long that I can not submit it any more, I found all the answers, it would not be fair”. But that is exactly the intention with untimed tests; that one continues until one finds no further solutions.
The confusion meant in the question is probably the notion that someone who uses less time is smarter than someone who uses more time to arrive at the same score. But the principle of untimed testing is that this is not so, and that “until one finds no further solutions” is the right amount of time, irrespective of how long that is. This principle is based on the finding that when the allowed time is increased on a timed test, the test’s g loading rises. With supervised tests one needs to have a time limit for practical reasons, but with unsupervised tests one can leave out the limit entirely.
I must add that I have nothing against supervised tests, provided they have a very broad time limit, something like three hours for a comprehensive test. But this is not feasible in the high-range testing practice. I can not get people from all over the world to travel to a place here where I can test them, and I can not set up testing locations worldwide in all countries. I tried, but the number of candidates willing to make use of such was negligible compared to regular unsupervised tests. So I stopped. And then there is always someone who says, “I would be willing to travel to you if you started with that again”. But one or two people is not enough to justify the significant effort and time put into such a project. If others wish to try it, go ahead.
Jacobsen: What is the intended age-range for high-range tests? How do these account for individuals younger and older than this range?
Cooijmans: From about 16 upward with no upper limit I would say. Older people do decline, but it is important that they participate in order to enable the study of this decline. Younger people are allowed to take the tests, and in practice, 12 years is about the lower limit. But they should be aware that they have not reached their adult level and will score lower than they will later be capable of. The steep increase of intelligence in childhood tapers off at about 16 and becomes shallow then, hence the idea that one enters one’s adult intelligence range at 16.
Another way to answer this would be “after puberty”. Individuals, sexes, and ethnic groups differ in their childhood development, then puberty messes everything up, and after puberty things have mostly settled. That is why childhood studies of mental ability are so misleading; they misrepresent possible sex and ethnic differences. Puberty has normally completed by or before age 16-17. Age of onset of puberty varies greatly per individual, sex, and population, and tends to be one to two years earlier for girls than for boys.
There are no separate norms per age group as that would hide the development of intelligence with age. And one wants to reveal that development, not hide it. Also, all candidates are treated and addressed as mentally mature adults, regardless of age. The development of intelligence with age plausibly differs per sex, which is why it should be studied within-sex; the most recent tabulation I made is at http://iq-tests-for-thehigh-range.com/statistics/age.html
Jacobsen: A modestly common/uncommon knowledge of sex differences in the measurement of intelligence: Men do better at visuo-spatial subcomponents and women do better at verbal-emotional processing. What is important in constructing and norming a test if these and other differences exist? What similarities exist to not change this process?
Cooijmans: There are indeed sex differences in aspects of mental ability. In constructing unsupervised high-range tests, it is not possible or meaningful to take these into account. One should just include the widest variety of item types usable in unsupervised tests and focus on high mental ability regardless of sex.
Women have the bad fortune that the aspects on which they are known to outscore men mostly require supervision and timing, and can therefore mostly not be included in unsupervised tests. According to Arthur Jensen in Chapter 13 of his book The g Factor, these aspects are simple arithmetic, short-term memory, fluency (for instance, naming as many as possible words starting with a given letter within a limited time), reading, writing, grammar, spelling, perceptual speed (for instance, matching figures), clerical checking (both speed and accuracy, things like underlining certain letters in a text, or digit/symbol coding), motor coordination, and finger and manual dexterity. This problem is less serious than it seems because these are mostly lowly g-loaded tasks (not by anyone’s decision but because it happens to be so) so that the overall score will not be affected much by their absence, but it may be affected somewhat. This is related to what was observed in my answer to “What are the core abilities…”
In norming, the proportion of high-range candidates outscored should be provided within-sex for reasons of transparency. I.Q. norms should be sex-combined as is usual.
Jacobsen: Cheaters exist. Frauds exist. How do you a) deal with frauds and cheaters on tests and b) prevent fraud and cheating on those tests? Have reference texts been a problem in this? Does artificial intelligence complicate matters more? (If so, how?)
Cooijmans: When I discover that someone committed fraud I will discard the fraudulent score in the database and make a note so that I can exclude that person from further testing and from society admission. This is sometimes complicated by the use of multiple false identities by such a person. If the person is a member of a society I am an administrator of, I will expel the person. In communication with other test creators or societies I may reveal what I know about the person if that seems appropriate. I do not believe there exists an organized system for sharing information about frauds between test creators, perhaps there should.
Attempting to prevent fraud is done, for instance, by not publishing the test itself, letting people prepay, not sending tests to known frauds and so on. And if I find out that answers to particular test items are published or spread somehow, I will do something about it; mostly it comes down to replacing the items, sometimes leading to a revised version of the test. Sometimes a test is withdrawn entirely.
I am not aware of reference texts that were involved in fraud. Artificial intelligence complicates things because frauds might consult it to solve test problems, which is not allowed as the test instructions state not to obtain answers from external sources but only use answers that one thought of by oneself. To reduce this complication I try to create problems for new tests so that current artificial intelligence, insofar as I apprehend it, can not solve them. I try to make the problems so that, once artificial intelligence becomes able to solve them, it will also be able to take tests and join societies on its own accord. I believe that will happen one day, but fear this day lies quite far into the future. If I had to guess I would say half a century.
Jacobsen: It helps to have other data from other tests and personal data for identity verification. What information from other tests is helpful/necessary for research purposes of high-range tests? What is an efficient and appropriate format to provide this score information? What personal data is necessary from candidates, if any? What information would be helpful for research purposes from candidates?
Cooijmans: Scores on other tests should best be reported in a format as follows, insofar as known:
[Test author or issuing organization] [Test name] [Raw score] [I.Q.] [Standard deviation of I.Q. scale used] [Percentile]
Scores should best be grouped by the first field (Test author), of course starting a new line for each score. Nowadays there exist hundreds of tests, and I can not know from the top of my head which test is from which author or organization, so if that first field is left out when reporting scores, which is common, this causes many minutes of extra work in processing that information.
Concerning personal information, at least name, sex, year of birth, country of origin, and highest achieved educational level. Some further information I collect is the educational levels of the biological parents, the presence of a psychiatric disorder, and the presence of such disorders among parents or siblings.
Notice that I find the exact date of birth not strictly needed. It is about studying the development of raw intelligence with age, and with adults, year of birth suffices. In childhood testing, one would want it to the month.
Regarding psychiatric disorders, I do not ask for the particular disorder as that would require too much detail, too many options, too much complication in the statistical processing of it.
And country of origin is a pragmatic imperfect proxy of origin. One might consider asking for race or ethnicity, but such categorization is logistically problematic when one looks into it, has many complications, may be considered unethical by some, and some may refuse to reveal their status.
Other data that might be useful to collect include religiousness and femininity/masculinity (independent of sex). The possible correlation between religiousness and high-range I.Q. could then be established, which many are wondering about. And one could verify the anecdotal observation that intelligent men are more feminine than average men, and intelligent women more masculine than average women. In other words, there is more gender diffusion in the high range, which would point to an optimum for intelligence somewhere between the average male and female positions on the femininity/masculinity dimension. Notice that the term “gender” is for once used correctly here. I am uncertain whether people would be able to simply report their own position on femininity/masculinity, or whether this would require a test or questionnaire.
Jacobsen: What is the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker now? What is the level of the most intelligent candidate now? What is the mean, median, and mode, of the scores of test-takers’ data gathered so far? Within a range of I.Q. 10 to 190 on an S.D. of 15, when should a candidate consider taking, or in fact take, high-range tests?
Cooijmans: The least intelligent seems to be in the I.Q. 80s. The frequency of such is one in thousands of high-range candidates. The most intelligent is plausibly between 185 and 195. One can not be certain yet about the accuracy of the norms there. And with candidates apparently far below the general population average, a problem is that they tend not to report usable information, so one has to resort to observation, life history facts they happen to mention, and aids like an online writing-to-I.Q. estimator.
The median is protonorm 401 (I.Q. 139) according to the latest computation I did of highrange quantiles. I never compute the mean, but that should be several I.Q. points higher because the distribution is skewed to the high side. The mode is protonorm 387 (I.Q. 137), but one could also say there is a modal range in the 130s. A mode always depends on how wide or narrow one chooses the classes of the frequency table.
People should consider taking high-range tests if they score above the 98th centile on some mainstream test, which is I.Q. 131 (or 130 on some tests that round differently). Below I.Q. 120 there is no reason to try high-range tests, but there is no objection to doing so anyway. There is a grey area from 120 to 130 because one does not score the same on different tests.
Jacobsen: What is efficient means by which to ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test?
Cooijmans: I have always used the square root of the weighted mean correlation of the test with other I.Q. tests as an estimation of the g loading. This works well for comparing different high-range tests. It is not a true g loading because the tests have not all been taken by the same group of candidates, but by different groups with limited overlaps, correlations obviously being computed for those overlaps. Also, when reported scores from other tests are involved, those may suffer from selective reporting, which depresses the correlations. If all the involved tests had been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, one would be close to a true g loading.
Another thing to consider is that high-range tests as I use them are almost all heterogeneous tests, so combining different item types within the test. But, in classical factor analysis, one uses a set of different homogeneous tests that have each been taken by each individual from a group. Typically, these are school exams for the various subjects administered to a school class, or subtests of a comprehensive psychological test like Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales. Via factor analysis, one then computes g and other factor loadings per subtest or exam, and these g loadings vary greatly and may be very low for some subtests. So this kind of analysis is not so much done with a set of heterogeneous tests; computing correlations between heterogeneous tests is more something seen in high-range psychometrics. In classical factor analysis, wide-range heterogeneous tests are considered pure indicators of g, and it is the loadings of the various subtests or exams that one is interested in.
Jacobsen: What is the most precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test, a superset of tests, or a subset of such a superset?
Cooijmans: The first is answered in the previous question. For a superset of tests it is not needed to compute such a loading, the superset can be safely considered a near-perfect indicator of g.
Jacobsen: What seem like the most appropriate places for people to start when taking your tests–taking into account their own skill sets, or others’ tests for that matter?
Cooijmans: I would recommend the privacy of one’s home. If “places” is meant nonliterally – as one sees, I am not one of those pedants who take everything literally – then a real computer to view the test is best, or at the very least a decent laptop (although I am really against the unneeded use of battery-powered devices). A smart telephone is no place to start.
In case the non-literalness is even more remote, always start with the easiest tests. It is bizarre how it can occur to people to start out with the hardest tests, and how they subsequently can not understand what a score of zero means and keep asking for years thereafter what their I.Q. was on that test and if it means they are “gifted”. By looking at the test norms one can know how hard a test is. Nevertheless, I have recently ordered the list of available tests by difficulty to accommodate this.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Cooijmans: Constructors: Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, a Netherlandic person who withdrew from the I.Q. societies so I can better not name him, Edward Vanhove, Hans Eysenck, Bill Bultas, Laurent Dubois.
Tests: Mega Test, Magma Test, tests from the self-test books by Eysenck, Chimera Test, 916 Test.
Regarding Langdon, studying his tests and statistical reports was instructive, if only because it told me which approaches were not so successful in measuring high-range intelligence. This includes attempting to make it more or less culture-fair, using multiple choice with a small number of options, item weighting based on item analysis (gives too much weight to a small number of items, and also the fact that single items do not have constant statistical properties undermines the idea of item weighting based on those properties), selecting items for a shorter test based on their statistical behaviour in an earlier longer test (the items’ behaviour is different in different tests), and norming that shorter test based on statistics from the earlier longer test (norms become mostly too high then). Also, that statistics from classical psychometrics, such as the reliability coefficient, are woefully inadequate to assess the quality of a high-range test.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from making these tests and their variants?
Cooijmans: I assume this is about my tests, not the tests by others from the previous question. The main points have already been mentioned in the questions about counterintuitive findings and about g not diminishing much in the high range. I could add the observation that intelligence expresses itself in almost everything a person does or says. I did not know that when I started.
In case the question is about the tests from the previous question, I already answered it there for Langdon’s tests. With Hoeflin’s tests, I learnt the norming method of rank equation, and the destructive effects of fraud through retesting, false names, and cooperation. In correspondence with others in the 1990s, I was appalled when people proudly told me they were collaborating in a group to “crack” the Mega Test. When they told me they had retested under their own name or another name (the instructions said the test could be taken only once but Hoeflin allowed retests in practice). When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests under his own name, then his sister’s name, then the son of his sister’s name, with ever-increasing scores. When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests with rather low scores, then had some friendly correspondence with the person from the previous sentence, then took the tests again with the same scores as the highest scores of that person. When someone told me he had missed the Mega Society pass level by half a standard deviation, then retested and qualified. With “retest” I always mean “to take the same test again”.
Several of those meant in the previous paragraph showed me their answers (unasked) and suggested I use them to get into the Mega Society. I had rarely been so shocked and insulted as by the suggestion that I would be capable of such fraud. I do not understand how those types can live with themselves. Having said that, two of them committed suicide in that period.
And of course, such people publicly display or mention their highest (fraudulent) scores, not their honest scores. I remember a phone call with a Netherlandic Mensa member as if it was yesterday; “Yeah, the ‘Mega Test’, I am working on it with some people in Spain and east Asia. Yeah, we have it mostly figured out now, that ‘Mega Test’, ha ha ha…” This person killed himself not long thereafter. Not the “Beheaded Man”, incidentally; the history of I.Q. societies is riddled with suicides, and some of them appear to have made the right decision for once in doing so. That is one thing that gives hope then; that some can indeed not live with themselves in the end.
Jacobsen: I received some decent points about high-range tests from Mahir Wu. Credit to him for the raw materials and permission to reframe those points as questions here. He raises foundational points. First point: item answers should be rigorously unique. Why?
Cooijmans: If multiple answers to a problem are correct, this has disadvantages: The one answer may be easier to find than the other, so that candidates with the same credit may not really be of the same level because they found different answers. And candidates who see more than one possible answer may be confused and not know which is the “right” one. Also, there may be subjectivity in scoring those answers. With only one correct answer, these problems are mostly avoided.
Of course, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, once people start taking the test, it may sometimes occur that alternative valid answers are still found, and then one has to solve this, for instance by revising, replacing, or removing the item. Sometimes this can be done “in place”, especially early on when there have not been many submissions yet, and otherwise this may be done later in a revised version of the test.
And, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, there will always be people who “see” alternative answers through apophenia when they can not find the real answer. The apophenic delusions stick rigidly in their minds and they become convinced they have solved the problem, although the logical flaws are obvious to an objective observer. In popular artificial-intelligence speak, people “hallucinate” when unable to find the real solution. But that is inherent to intelligence testing; escaping this delusional rigidity is part of high intelligence, or rather, is an aspect of having a wide associative horizon. You will need that mental flexibility too when solving real-world problems. Sometimes, you have to take a step back and make a fresh start to eventually find the real solution.
To illustrate that apophenic delusions are very real and persistent, I want to give some examples: I have a Test for Extrasensory Perception, which is exactly what it says. It is not an intelligence test, I did not hide any clues or patterns in it. Still, some years ago an otherwise normal person sent me a document of many pages, describing his decoding and solutions for it in long association chains. He was convinced he had found patterns that I had deliberately put there. Since this was explicitly not the case, this example proves that candidates may suffer from apophenic delusions all by themselves, and that this is not caused by ambiguity of the test items.
And long ago someone published articles in I.Q. society journals, explaining how he had found references to the appearances of particular comets hidden in poems of certain literary authors.
And another one produced a long series of essays, analysing the dates of events related to the Roman Catholic church by counting the days separating the events, finding numerical patterns therein, and concluding that the Vatican was conducting a dirty scheme that would culminate in some horrific project (I am not allowed to disclose it I think) of which he predicted the exact date in the near future.
I am not naming these examples to ridicule people, but to show that such delusions can be extremely strong in apparently sane people. When taking high-range tests, it occurs often. If it happens to you, rest assured, for only in a small minority of cases does it lead to full-blown psychosis.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, the test item answers with ambiguity should be disallowed. Why should these not be allowed, if agreeing with Wu? If disagreeing with Wu, why?
Cooijmans: I agree for the reasons given in my previous answer. But as said, sometimes you only discover ambiguity as test submissions are coming in, when studying comments by candidates.
Jacobsen: Why should test items give sufficient clues for discovery and solution by a test-taker?
Cooijmans: Because otherwise it is impossible to solve the items, obviously.
Jacobsen: Following the last question, why would permission of a mere guessing logic spoil a test?
Cooijmans: Because correct answers that result from guessing do not stem from the candidate’s mental ability being used. Such answers are random variance and thus reduce the test’s reliability, and therefore also its validity. Test items should be made so that the probability of getting them right by accident is so small that, on average, candidates will gain less than one raw score point in the total score by guessing. This does permit multiple-choice items, but they should be cleverly constructed so that the likelihood of a correct guess is very small. For instance, by letting the candidate choose several options from a list instead of just one.
Incidentally, I have heard people suggest that multiple-choice items that can be answered correctly by guessing reveal intuition and/or psychic ability, but even if that is true, I believe that intelligence tests should not measure intuition or psychic ability. I am also not a fan of penalties for wrong answers with multiple-choice; supposedly, this corrects for guessing, but of course, a candidate who chooses a wrong answer, thinking it is right and not guessing, is then penalized for the wrong reason. The penalty does not distinguish between guessing and being simply wrong, and in the latter case, no penalty should apply. For clarity, a penalty constitutes a negative item score, typically a subtraction of a fraction of a point, depending on the number of answering options for that item.
An anecdotal experience regarding multiple-choice tests: Once, the instructions to one of my multiple-choice tests said, “There are no penalties for wrong answers”. After a while I removed that instruction because some candidates demanded a perfect score based on it. They took it as, “You will always get a perfect score no matter what you answer”. Of course they were wrong, because one starts out with zero points at the beginning of the test, not with the maximum, so “no penalties for wrong answers” in no way implies a perfect score. But if people are so willingly and stubbornly taking it the wrong way, I am not going to pain my brain trying to formulate it even better than it already was.
Jacobsen: How can the sufficiency of each test item’s uniqueness become integrated into the overall test (even test schema) to prevent the identical pattern from emerging too much in a single test (or test schema)?
Cooijmans: If I understand the question correctly, I would say that a test should consist of a broad diversity of items with mostly different patterns. They need not be all completely different; maybe two or three of a similar looking pattern are acceptable, provided the implementation of the pattern is different every time, so that the candidate is forced to recognize what is going on in each case.
In some of my tests, like “Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree”, I had a series of about ten problems of the same kind in ascending difficulty, and that did not work well. Many candidates were able to solve all the problems in such a series. The items work as examples for each other and become too easy. So I concluded that it is better not to have more than 1 to 3 items of a similar kind in a test, and even those should differ sufficiently in implementation.
Jacobsen: How can the inspiration from, even addition of, other authors’ test items degrade a test’s quality by giving more clues to test-takers to test items otherwise unsolved without them?
Cooijmans: If a test contains an item that is similar to an item in another test by another author, the one item may function as an example to the other and thus make it easier. I have experienced a few times that a difficult problem in one of my tests appeared to have become much easier. Eventually, a candidate told me that a test by another test creator had a very similar but easier problem, and that made my difficult problem suddenly solvable. I then replaced that item.
And, if a candidate is familiar with a particular item variant from other tests and is thus better able to solve such items, those items also lose their g loading for that candidate. It becomes a learnt skill, and learnt skills have no g loading.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what about the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors?
Cooijmans: If the question is about references inside a test to specific test items by other test authors, I am not aware of such references, possibly because I never look at tests by others. If such references exist, they probably help the candidate, which one may not want. But it is better not to have test items that resemble items by other authors altogether.
Jacobsen: In some sense, is it truly difficult to avoid this issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another inspired–by the former–author, especially as more high-range tests are constructed? Wu references his latest test, “[Mystery],” as an example of an adherence to the close application of this principle, where the evidentiary effects of others’ tests become hard to apply to it. Consequently, results for “[Mystery]” are submitted much less.
Cooijmans: With so many high-range tests in existence, it will be getting harder to avoid similarities between tests by different authors indeed. I myself never look at tests by others and create problems independently. In an earlier question about avoiding or minimizing test constructor bias I name some independent sources of inspiration. These do not include tests by others. One should never look at tests by others for inspiration for new test items!
Jacobsen: Why should scale and norm not be overly subjective? Wu references T. Prousalis–link– and you–link, link. Also, why does a median score for many tests with a corresponding IQ of 145 (SD15), or higher, make little sense?
Cooijmans: Norms should be objective and correct, otherwise they are not comparable between tests. A few possible causes of incorrect norms are the following: When a beginning test scorer starts out administering tests, initially one will only have reported scores by candidates to base the norms on. Unfortunately, many candidates are dishonest in reporting scores, leaving out lower scores and reporting the higher ones, or even reporting retests or fraudulent scores. This gives an upward bias, and the norms based thereon may be ridiculously too high, even 10 to 20 I.Q. points too high on average. In the longer term, this may sort itself out as one acquires more, and more true, data about the candidates’ scores. Theoretically, this could also be solved by different test constructors sharing their candidate data to thus make the candidates’ true scores on other tests available, but I believe this might be unethical and a violation of privacy. I know some test designers are currently publishing candidate scores online, but that too seems unethical, and also I do not know if that published data is trustworthy and am hesitant to use it.
For information, a few test creators have sent me their complete data for a particular test of theirs, including candidate names, and I have scored a test by another author (Bill Bultas) myself in the past, so for those tests I have unbiased data.
Another cause of incorrect norms is megalomania by the test creator. There exist authors who delusionally reckon themselves to be profoundly intelligent, but really have much lower I.Q.’s, typically in the 130s to 140s at most. So when they receive test submissions by people whom
they perceive as being at roughly their level of understanding, they feel compelled to give out much too high I.Q. scores, otherwise they would have to admit to themselves they are not really as intelligent as they believe.
A median of I.Q. 145 or higher is unrealistic. The high-range population is roughly the upper segment of the general population, cut off at about I.Q. 130. This is not a perfectly clean cut, but if it were, and for the sake of illustration, the following would be necessarily true: With a clean cut at 131 (98th centile) the median would be 135 (99th centile, so halfway the cut and the top). With a clean cut at 135 (99th centile) the median would be 139 (99.5th centile). A median of 145 (99.87th centile) would imply a clean cut at 142 (99.74). This is not consistent with the known population of high-range candidates; most of them are below 142, or at least I believe the evidence for that is more than sufficient.
My experience is that the median of many high-range scores is almost always between 136 and 141. The fundamental cause of this, I think, is that only from the low to mid-130s onward people are interested in intellectual endeavours like taking difficult tests. Below that, it tapers off steeply. Above that, it tapers shallowly, and that shallow curve reflects the actual distribution of those
high I.Q.’s in the general population. And this distribution is apparently such that the median of people wanting to take high-range tests ends up around 136-141. The mode is several points lower than the median, the mean several points higher. The mode probably represents the point from whereon the high-range distribution follows the general population distribution (upward). The mode is, more or less, the cut-off point meant in the previous paragraph.
Jacobsen: The following are questions formulated based on input questions provided by Matthew Scillitani. What is the process of making preliminary norms before submissions have been given for a test?
Cooijmans: If it is a fully new test and no data exists for its contents at all, I estimate the minimum raw scores that a Glia Society member and a Giga Society member, respectively, should obtain. So for each problem, I look at it and ask myself, “Should a Glia/Giga Society member be able to solve this?” Then I interpolate between those two scores, and extrapolate outward until I reach the edges of the test, where I taper with 5 protonorm points per raw score point. The edges are each sized half the square root of the total possible raw score range.
Jacobsen: There seems to be a stigma around high-range tests. Is there a process to normalize taking them or having them exist in the first place?
Cooijmans: There are indeed many who do not take high-range tests seriously, and this includes prominent figures like the late Hans Eysenck. In one of his “test yourself” books, I remember he was skeptical about the possibility of measuring intelligence in the high range, and even ridiculed it. He provided a number of absurdly complex problems “for the super-intelligent”, which appeared to be a parody on high-range testing.
Much of the distrust and denial regarding high-range testing stems from the fear that one might not oneself belong to the most intelligent; it is comfortably reassuring to say to oneself, “Those tests are just puzzles by amateurs and their scores are meaningless, we can not measure intelligence beyond the 99th centile”. It is a way to protect one’s delusion that no one is verifiably smarter than oneself.
Another cause of the stigma is the inescapable fact that there are fewer women than men in the high range. This is such a taboo that denying the validity of high-range testing is imperative to the politically correct academic, if only for that reason.
A possible process to normalize high-range testing would be to establish it as a recognized branch of psychology at universities. I suspect this would require that we first reverse the decades-long neo-Marxist occupation of academia and make universities into places of genuine science practised by the most intelligent again. A concrete application of high-range psychometrics would be to devise proper admission procedures for universities to undo the dumbing-down that has taken place there over the past half century. The fact that the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination were about the only mainstream tests with validity in the high range illustrates how appropriate high-range testing is in the context of college and university.
For completeness, it should be mentioned that psychologist Lewis Terman (1877-1955) has tried to measure intelligence in the high range with two forms of his “Concept Mastery Test”. These were applied to subjects selected as children based on childhood scores of 140 and
higher, and followed up in adulthood with the two Concept Mastery Tests. These were verbal tests highly loaded on vocabulary, not permitting references aids. In an unsupervised situation (which was and is how they are typically administered) it is exceedingly easy to cheat on such a test by using dictionaries and thus score absurdly far above one’s real level. Also, non-natives of the English language have a large disadvantage, in the order of 30 I.Q. points. So while these tests were non-robust against cheating and strongly culture-dependent, at least he tried. Since Terman has also been criticized for his belief in eugenics, heredity of intelligence, and racial differences therein, he forms an intersection between high-range psychometricians and hereditarians, so to speak.
Having mentioned the Concept Mastery Tests, I should warn that the scores mostly quoted for them are raw scores, not I.Q.’s. Ronald K. Hoeflin has administered those tests for a while too, also unsupervised, so one should not rely too much on possible reported Concept Mastery scores from test candidates as they may be hugely inflated through fraud.
Jacobsen: Have test construction and norming processes evolved in the aggregate for you?
Cooijmans: Of course, when one has been doing something for decades, one has implemented improvements. If I have to give examples, I have become more concerned with locking in a unique answer and avoiding ambiguity and subjectivity in scoring, and I am also inclining more to having tests contain a surplus of difficult problems and a minority of easier ones. Regarding norming, one of the first things I learnt was that z-score equation – equating means and standard deviations – results in incorrect norms because raw test scores tend not to behave linearly, which is required for z-score equation to make sense. So I went with rank equation. Over the years I automated ever more of the process, so that now I can norm a test in 10 to 30 minutes mostly, while originally this took several whole days.
I also learnt to formulate problems better to avoid misunderstanding. For instance, people skilled at mathematics may have a bizarre deformation that makes them interpret numbers differently from normal humans. If I say, “There are three apples on the table”, any sane person will understand that there are three apples on the table. But not mathematicians! The mathematician will understand that there are three OR MORE apples on the table. Because the mathematician thinks, “If there are four or five or six… apples on the table, there are three apples on the table too”. So to the mathematician you have say, “There are exactly three apples on the table”.
Jacobsen: What are the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test?
Cooijmans: Easiest: Finishing off the eventual test once the problems have been conceived, and creating the database fields that will receive the incoming submissions. Also, norming is easy on the whole. Hardest: Creating the problems. This has got ever harder, the more tests I made. I try not to repeat myself too much, and try to take into account that the Internet as a search tool has become ever more powerful. The various types of fraud are hard to deal with. I have no sympathy or tolerance for the individuals behind it. The hardest nowadays is to create test problems that are robust against the developments that enable dishonest people to cheat. Those who have spread test answers should reveal the names of the recipients of the answers, so that we can clean up the statistics. And if they sold answers for money, they have to refund, and possible profit they made by investing the fraudulently acquired money should be donated to a good cause.
Jacobsen: Of your tests–51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special to you?
Cooijmans: To name a few, Test of the Beheaded Man, Cooijmans Intelligence Test (any form), Daedalus Test, The Nemesis Test, Test For Genius (any form), Only Idiots, The Gate, The Piper’s Test, Dicing with death, The Smell Test. Each in their own way, they demand the candidate to operate at the summit of cognition in ways that are not trivial but tie in to the essence of existence itself. That is what I have generally striven for.
Jacobsen: In pre-2000, you wrote some articles in Netherlandic on test design. Are there any insights from those articles not replicated here or elsewhere worth replicating, or reiterating, here?
Cooijmans: I looked through the articles, and the following points may be worth mentioning:
Marilyn vos Savant occurs briefly in one article; she is known for having “the world’s highest I.Q.” according to the Guinness book of world records. I would like to add here that someone once showed me a copy of a page from Megarian No. 6 (October 1982) where her actual scores on the Stanford-Binet and preliminary Mega tests are reported. “Megarian” was the journal of the Mega Society then.
Also nice is the early history of Mensa, as related by founder Victor Serebriakoff in one of his books, which was reviewed by David Gamon in the Mensa International Journal of January/February 1995. The founders at the time believed to be selecting members at the level of 1 in 3000 (some sources say 1-in-6,000) but later discovered a mistake in the procedure, as a result of which they had been selecting at 1-in-50. Not wanting to send the bulk of members away again, they left it as it was.
Also mentioned somewhere is Kevin Langdon, creator of the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test (1977, I think) and founder of the Four Sigma society. If one is interested in high-range psychometrics, the statistical reports published by Langdon in the 1970s and later are worth looking at. Langdon’s approach differed from Hoeflin’s in that Langdon first expressed the candidate’s performance as “scaled score” (some conversion of the raw performance) and then equated means and mean deviations of scaled scores and scores on other tests, resulting in a linear relation between I.Q. and scaled score. Hoeflin, on the other hand, normed raw scores directly via rank equation, resulting in a non-linear relation that reveals the non-linear nature of simple raw scores.
This is a good time to explain there are different ways to arrive at a scaled score: The simplest way is to scale raw scores linearly from 0 to 100 or 0 to 1,000, for instance. Some test constructors have done that (Alan Aax and Rijk Griffioen, I remember) but it brings no advantage compared to raw scores; the non-linearity of raw scores remains, obviously, when the relation between raw and scaled scores is linear.
If the goal is to obtain a more linear (intervallic) scale, there has to be some weighting or balancing, and a crude but solid method is to give a certain class of problems that appear harder or more important extra credit a priori, regardless of item statistics. This was done by Hoeflin with the Ultra Test, where non-verbal problems get two points. This is effective and without problems, but the resulting weighted scores are still far from linear, if one had any concerns about that.
A more refined way is to give items individual weights based on item analysis. In theory this should yield an intervallic scale, but there are serious disadvantages: (1) A small number of problems tend to carry most of the weight after weighting thus, which is always dangerous; (2) It adds an extra layer of sampling error because one relies on the correctness of the item statistics, and my experience is that item statistics are not constant but differ from sample to sample, so that one is building on quicksand as it were; (3) The intuitive simplicity of a raw score is lost; the candidate can not know the number of correct answers from the weighted score.
My preference is to use a simple raw score, or in cases where it seems appropriate a crude weighting that does not rely on item statistics, such as in the example of the Ultra Test. If these methods do not result in a meaningful ranking of candidates, that test is bad to begin with and no advanced item weighting will fix it. I accept that raw scores are non-linear, and the conversion to linearity takes place in the norming of raw score to I.Q.
That last sentence leads to the question, “How do we know that I.Q. is a linear scale?” The answer is that I.Q.’s are deviation scores; they denote a distance to the mean in a hypothetical normal distribution. Note the word “hypothetical”; it is not claimed that intelligence follows a normal distribution in the physical reality. But the tacit assumption in statistics is that when a distribution is normal (Gaussian), its underlying scale is linear (intervallic). So when you force test scores into a normal distribution, you create a linear scale, or that is the unspoken idea. This is expressed in the way we identify points on the scale in terms such as “2 standard deviations above the mean”. This implies an underlying linear scale; after all, if the scale were not linear, the one standard deviation would not be the same as the other, so it would make no sense to say “2 standard deviations above the mean”! In fact, the mere computation of an arithmetic mean assumes an underlying intervallic scale, as it involves summation.
So the bottom line is, if we take care that the frequencies of I.Q.’s beyond various points of the scale do not differ too much from their theoretical rarities in the normal distribution, we may assume that I.Q. is linear. I say this without claiming that deviation I.Q.’s are the best way to express intelligence; but I do not have a better way at the moment.
Jacobsen: Some submitted questions anonymously. These are the adaptations of those questions: Personally, do you know any geniuses? If you do not know any personally, where are all of the geniuses?
Cooijmans: I have to say that when it gets anonymous, the quality goes down. Imagine that I answered “no” to the first question! How insulting that would be to everyone I know! Since a genius is someone who exercises a lasting influence in any field, inherently it can only be known in hindsight who was one, like long after the genius’ death. It is well possible that several people I know will turn out to be geniuses, but we do not know yet who they are.
In history books you will find a lot of identified geniuses.
Jacobsen: Why refer to these individuals in this way, i.e., as geniuses? What traits characterise them?
Cooijmans: The word “genius” comes from the Latin “gignere”, meaning to conceive, to bring forth, to cause. Francis Galton used the word “eminence” for what is now mostly called genius.
The traits of genius, according to me, are intelligence, conscientiousness, and a wide associative horizon. Genius is not talent. It requires talent, but talent alone does not suffice. One will need to apply that talent in order to make a lasting contribution.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself as a genius? If so, why? If not, why not?
Cooijmans: Naturally, someone of my enormous modesty and humility would never call oneself a genius. I leave that to the scores of future generations who will devote their lives to the study of my work.
Jacobsen: What do you think has been the contribution of your I.Q. Tests for the High Range? Is it a work for study by others or a hobby?
Cooijmans: The contribution lies in studying the measurability of intelligence in the high range, and some other questions related to that as stated at https://iq-tests-forthe-high-range.com/mission.html. It is certainly worthy of being studied by others, and others should also undertake such study independently. It is not just a hobby, except in the sense that one can make one’s hobby into one’s work.
Jacobsen: Who are others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence?
Cooijmans: This can only be answered properly for people who were (already) working longer ago, before the current generation of high-range testers. That would be Lewis Terman, Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Xavier Jouve, and Laurent Dubois. For the ones who came after these, it is too soon to judge their merit.
In addition, there have been some people who created tests that looked truly good to me, but who only kept scoring their tests briefly and then withdrew from testing, so that little or no usable data resulted. These people exemplify what I said a few questions ago: that talent is not genius, but merely a requirement for genius. They had talent, but did not use it to make a lasting contribution to high-range testing.
Jacobsen: What is the most common mistake people make when submitting feedback about your tests?
Cooijmans: Assuming that they have understood a test item correctly, and then commenting on it from that assumption.
Jacobsen: What aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing?
Cooijmans: It can be confusing if people send feedback before sending answers. I have to be careful not to help them by responding. Nevertheless, in case the feedback concerns a mistake in a test problem, it can be useful, especially when a test is very new.
Jacobsen: The most common Marathon Test Numeric Section score is a perfect 44 out of 44. What lessons have you learned from this high-end score saturation?
Cooijmans: That the problems are not hard enough. Also that a series of similar problems of increasing difficulty tends to be too easy on the whole. And that, to make a numerical test hard enough, either very difficult mathematics-biased problems are needed, or problems that implement a pattern that needs to be recognized. The latter seem the most fair, the former seem to give an advantage to people skilled at mathematics.
Jacobsen: When creating high-range questions, is there a consideration of steering test takers toward wrong answers? Are extant questions ever modified in this way?
Cooijmans: Obviously, steering test-takers toward wrong answers is the whole point of creating good test items, not only in high-range testing but also in mainstream intelligence tests. There is even a word for it: distractors. Multiple-choice tests, omnipresent in mainstream psychological testing, contain answering options that are wrong but appear more plausible than the intended correct answer.
Thus, a candidate who really can not solve any problem at all will score below the chance guessing level, and this lower level is called the “pseudo-chance level”. For instance, if a test has 40 problems and 5 answering options per item, the chance guessing level is 8 correct, but the pseudo-chance level may be only 5 correct due to distractors.
Extant questions are not generally modified in this way.
Jacobsen: Which books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics have provided helpful accurate understandings of psychological measurement, psychometric concepts, etc., for you? Others may find some fruitful plumbing there.
Cooijmans: The most specific sources regarding high-range testing are the various statistical or norming reports by Kevin Langdon and Ronald K. Hoeflin, as issued by them in the 1970s through 1990s (Hoeflin only started in the 1980s, I think). These helped to see how high-range tests are normed, and also aided in the interpretation of scores on a lot of those old American tests like the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Miller Analogies Test, Army General Classification Test and more. The “Omni sample” of the Mega Test contains many scores of those versus Mega Test scores, and as such is an important anchor of high-range tests to the general population, especially so since those old tests in some cases did discriminate into the high range. This can not be said about the newer dumbed-down versions of the educational and military tests, whose validity tends to end at the 99th centile, and for whose interpretation one should consult the information provided by the relevant issuing organizations.
What one can see for instance in the Omni sample is that the old G.R.E., S.A.T., and Army General Classification Test correlated quite well with the Mega Test, while on the other hand the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales and Stanford-Binet, by many regarded as the gold standard of I.Q. testing, appeared to lack any validity in the high range. This observation holds true until today in data collected by myself, except for the old Army General Classification Test on which I have almost no data.
Then, an actual text book on psychometrics I have studied is the Netherlandic “Testtheorie” by P.J.D. Drenth and K. Sijtsma from 1990. This covers both classical psychometrics and the newer item-response theory.
Another useful book, a bit more general, is “Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences”, second edition, by Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, from 1988.
An important book on intelligence testing is The g factor by Arthur Jensen, from 1998. While not intended as a psychometrics textbook, it does contain a lot of advanced information on psychometrics, including some factor analysis, often in the footnotes.
As it happens, there is also an e-book called The g factor by Christopher Brand, from 1996, also containing information on psychometrics and some factor analysis.
A book on statistics in general (not psychometrics) I have studied is the Netherlandic Statistiek in de praktijk by David S. Moore and George P. McCabe. I see there is an English version too, Introduction to the Practice of Statistics; 2nd edition (1993).
A book dealing specifically with multivariate statistics such as correlation, regression, and factor analysis is Using Multivariate Statistics (third edition) by Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell (1996).
I also still have my mathematics books from secondary school, one of which contains chapters on statistics and probability calculation. Occasionally I look through those to refresh these basics of my knowledge in this field.
Finally I want to add that the history of statistics and of mathematics is informative regarding psychometrics. Reading about such will teach you that statistics has been closely related to psychological testing since the 19th century, and that probability calculation was developed for the purposes of gambling and insurance.
The history of mathematics in general, found for instance in A Concise History of Mathematics by Dirk Jan Struik, tells us that mathematics originates in the early days of agriculture, cities, and large-scale administration. That is, within the past ten thousand years or so, the holocene, after the last glacial period. Computing the area of parcels of land required mathematics.
I suspect that the intelligence of the people coming out of the last glacial period was primarily of a visual-spatial nature, and as they became settled and practised agriculture, built cities, and administrated societies, they needed higher numerical ability as well as written language. I imagine that spoken language existed long before that, originally in the form of words without grammar some two million years ago to coordinate hunting in groups in early Homo, and later on with grammar, perhaps in the days of Homo sapiens.
Language is not unique to humans incidentally, but exists in other beings too, such as birds, primates, and whales. Animals like crows are likely at the intelligence level of early Homo, but I am uncertain if their physicality will allow a further development such as has taken place in Homo. Key points like the manufacturing of tools and mastery of the fire may require arms, hands, fingers, and thumbs such as humans have.
Visual-spatial ability is also not restricted to humans, but found in many animal species, in particular to enable predating. As such, visual-spatial ability should be a few hundred million years old, as that is when the first predators came.
The importance of this history of abilities is that when we test abilities now, the results we get, such as the intercorrelations of various abilities, are as it were a fossil record of this evolution. A development that I believe takes place in civilized societies is the erosion of the original visual-spatial ability in favour of verbal ability. A high level of verbal ability in the absence of the foundation of visual-spatial ability, I think, leads to dishonesty, deceit, evil, decadence, and societal collapse.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Abstract
Daniel Shea, M.Sc. is the founder and CEO of Chatoyance. Shea possesses a Master’s degree in Computer Science from the University of New Hampshire, with several years of industry experience in software engineering. He has published freelance articles on foreign exchange market strategy analysis and has published software analyzing fractals in the foreign exchange markets. Leveraging his experience with software design and financial markets, he started Chatoyance with the intent of transforming the way independent investors approach the foreign exchange market. Shea discusses: interest in test construction; the earlier tests and Chris Cole and Dean Inada; the origin and inspiration; Cole and Inada; training in general statistics and software engineering; skills and considerations; help with problem schemas, adaptivity, user interfaces, and re-norming; verbal problems and replicability across other problem types; roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments; the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test; the Adaptive IQ Test website; tests and test constructors; and the making of a test.
Keywords: adaptive generative test challenges, adaptive IQ Test, challenges in test-taking assumptions, Chris Cole, Daniel Shea, Dean Inada, Adaptive IQ Test development, Dynamic test development, Glen Wooten, high-range IQ societies, item curve adaptation, John Fahy, Mega and Titan Test item analysis, multidimensional high-range tests, Nathan Hays, norming and re-norming high-range tests, problem schemas and adaptivity, Rick Rosner, test security and leakage, verbal problems in high-range tests, Werner Couwenbergh.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Daniel Shea: My involvement came about from conversations with Chris Cole and Dean Inada. There had been an effort to implement an adaptive, generative test many years ago, but it reached a point where conceiving of new high-range questions became increasingly difficult and there were some technical challenges in actually coding a platform to take such a test. Since I had some background on the technical side, I offered to assist.
16
Jacobsen: What were the general realizations about the earlier tests, e.g., The Mega Test, The Titan Test, The Ultra Test, and The Hoeflin Power Test, of Ronald Hoeflin (Mega Society), and then the need to work in coordination with others for you, i.e., Chris Cole and Dean Inada, to develop a more dynamic test? This form of test development began before you.
Shea: These tests, and other high-range tests available today, are untimed and unsupervised, which introduces many self-evident problems, chief among them being that people will leak answers or collaborate with others. Some of these issues may have been less prevalent at the time these tests were originally constructed in the 1980s and 1990s, but for several years now, many of the answers to these tests have been made available on various message boards or Usenet groups. In some instances, the answers are incorrect or there are multiple answers floating around which muddy the waters, but this is not always the case.
A test should not be entirely discarded just because one or two answers have been leaked. On the other hand, if enough answers have been leaked that one could achieve a sufficiently close score to a given society’s cutoff, that society may need to take a vote on whether to continue to allow the test to be used for admission. There is an ongoing effort to identify tests that have
been compromised to such a degree, but that judgment call is not an exact science.
Much of the background on the motivation for a dynamic test has been covered in Chris Cole’s September 2001 article “How to Protect High-Range Tests” in Noesis #155. To quote, “In looking at many tests, there is a certain pattern that appears. It is possible to classify the problems into groups. For example, Ron Hoeflin has a group of problems about cells formed by intersecting various solids such as spheres, cubes, etc. The solution to one member of this group (say, three cubes) does not help much in the solution of another (say, two cones and a sphere). Yet it might be the case that there is an underlying mathematics that yields the answers to all of the problems in the group. Then a very large number of problems could be generated, where the solution to one problem would not help in the solution of another. This would be ideal for creating an online test, because cheating would be impossible.” I would probably caution that this does not make cheating outright impossible, but introduces another layer of security.
Jacobsen: Similarly, what was the origin and inspiration for joining this small team – the facts and the feelings?
Shea: In a way, the fact that the team was so small made it easier to join. There was a website, mental-testing.com, that had an initial version of the adaptive test, but it was not working at the time that I joined, so the decision was made to rewrite it from the ground up. With greenfield projects in general, there are more degrees of freedom and less rigidity in its development. The ability to make some sort of impact, even if only on a technical level, was appealing. There is also the fact that the Ultra Test and the Power Test, which are the only tests used for Mega Society admission at this point in time, will eventually be spoiled in their entirety, at which point there will be no viable test for admission without some suitable replacement.
Jacobsen: As an open credit to Cole and Inada, what have been each of their major contributions to the development of the Adaptive IQ Test (2003-present)? (Anyone else, too?) For examples, “How to Protect High-Range Tests” by Chris Cole comments on the difficulties in test questions/high-range tests remaining non-compromised in the internet era, the cost in open-sourcing test creation and norming, and the possibility in designing high-range tests with more foundational principles of math to generate questions (through schemas). Subsequently, “Reply to Chris Cole on Norming High-Range Tests” by Dean Inada commented on something like probability sloping for relative hardness of problems per person and problem. They were discussing, in essence, some foundations for – what would become – the Adaptive IQ Test.
Shea: The background discussed in those articles serves as the foundation for what the Adaptive IQ Test has become in its current iteration. Dean Inada, in his response article, writes “we’ll want a better method of norming the tests than simply ranking people by the number of questions they get correctly, since one person may be asked harder questions than another. I suggest a method that tries to estimate for each question the probability of getting it right or wrong as a function of a person’s percentile rank in the population, this rank is estimated by multiplying the generally increasing and decreasing functions for the problems gotten right and wrong.” The Adaptive IQ Test implements this, modeling an individual curve for the test-taker based on their responses to each administered item and its item curve, and presenting a problem variant accordingly.
Jacobsen: You do not have a formal background in psychometrics. Most people in the high-range construction space do not have a formal background in psychometrics. However, you have training in general statistics and software engineering, i.e., stuff used at Chatoyance, helped with the work on the Adaptive IQ Test?
Shea: As noted, I do not have a formal background in psychometrics. My involvement in the project has been largely technical in nature, drawing on prior general software engineering skills to implement the problem schemas and adaptive component, design the user interfaces for each problem (some may require drawings, some may require filling in a grid, etc.), automate the norming and curving for each item as results come in, and so on. Indeed, the largest challenge has been in conceiving of suitable problem schemas, which I am happy to brainstorm but of course defer to those with a deeper background than my own. Between that and ensuring problem variants are all similarly challenging, progress is ongoing.
Jacobsen: What skills and considerations, in an overview, seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Shea: Among the questions that exist in the current alpha version of the test, these were largely derived from existing problems authored by Ron Hoeflin. The sense was that it was not the problems themselves that were fundamentally at fault here, but rather that it took more effort to vet a sufficient problem than it did for someone to go on to leak it.
With that said, deriving a schema that generates problems of similar difficulty is a challenge, and often requires restricting the degrees of freedom for the generator itself. For instance, the Mega and Titan item analysis has shown that the interpenetrating solid questions tend to be among the most challenging, but the degree to which they are challenging varies significantly. Consider the three interpenetrating solid questions on Ron Hoeflin’s Power Test, which are lifted from the Mega and Titan Tests. There is a notable difference in the difficulty of the interpenetrating cube and tetrahedron compared to the interpenetrating three cubes compared to the interpenetrating two cones and one cylinder. It would not be good practice to include a general schema for any configuration of interpenetrating solids. Rather, you would need to classify these by difficulty and generate them separately. But where does this classification come from? Item analysis gets you started, but at a certain point, you also depend on a sufficient number of people to take the test and get a better idea of the difficulty and signal of each variant.
Jacobsen: How do you help with problem schemas, adaptivity, user interfaces, and re-norming? How are the problem schemas developed from the Mega, Titan, and Ultra, tests, e.g., the six sides question from the Ultra Test (problem 45) and grid sequences from the Power Test (problems 32-36)?
Shea: In some ways, it is difficult to discuss particular schemas at length because doing so may reveal the underlying pattern in the process. Many schemas are derived programmatically, while some do not have a proven underlying pattern but are bucketed in the same schema, such as the interpenetrating solid variants discussed prior.
User interfaces are designed according to the requirements of the problem. The most challenging interfaces have been the sixth side problem, which requires drawing on a canvas and scoring the answer in a way that accommodates any orientation of the object, and the three dice problem, whose challenge was less with the user interface per se and more with the backend construction of each variant.
Norming is automatically done after each test has been completed. This also backfills prior test-takers, whose estimates are updated accordingly. In the interest of fairness, there are two metrics presented: the immutable estimate per the norm at the time of the test’s completion and the most recent estimate per the latest norm.
Jacobsen: How are verbal problems capable of presenting appropriately challenging problems with variation in type while sustaining similarity of difficulty? Is this replicable across other problem types, e.g., spatial, numerical/quantitative, matrices, etc.?
Shea: Verbal problems in particular have been quite tricky. In the current form of the test, there are trial questions which are presented to the test-taker but do not impact their estimated curve. These trial questions include some, but not all, of the verbal questions. This is in part because verbal problems that have a clean generalization tend to be quite easy to solve. Unlike problems with a more mathematical or logical approach, verbal problems tend to be self-contained, and if generalizable at a high-range, risk producing variants that are far more esoteric than others. This class of problems continues to present the greatest challenge.
Jacobsen: Potentially, what are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these high-range tests? So, they get artificially low scores.
Shea: In terms of time commitments, at this point, there is no limitation to the length of time that a test may be completed. Historically, it would have been more difficult to enforce, as most high-range tests are made available in their entirety to the public. There are some approaches that are taken to minimize leakage of the questions themselves, such as with Paul Cooijmans requiring test-takers to directly request a copy of the test, though my understanding is that this is done to prevent public discussion of the questions and, in turn, their answers, as opposed to any limitations on time taken to complete the test. Timed tests do allow for a measurement of processing speed to some degree, as well as a standardization of test-taking conditions, but given that these particular tests are already being administered without supervision and in whichever environment the test-taker prefers due to the questions requiring a significant amount of time to answer, timing the test could risk giving an unfair advantage to those who simply have more free time to commit.
As far as thought processes, I do not have enough insight into individual test-takers to make broad generalizations about their personal approaches to these problems. From what I have witnessed myself through discussions with others, there is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a tendency to overthink a question or use complicated reasoning to justify a suspected answer, thereby getting it wrong. Almost every time, the answer is clean; like learning how a magic trick is performed, the question once looked impossible but suddenly seems deceptively simple.
Jacobsen: What are the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and a tendency in a type of personality?
Shea: Since norms are performed on test completion, the process has little overhead. To accommodate low sample sizes, an initial item curve is provided for questions when known. For example, if a schema is adopted from a prior test such as the Ultra Test, then the item curve for that problem is used as the seed for this test. In some cases, such as novel schemas which do not have a prior item curve from which to draw, the curve starts out flat and is gradually shaped based on the test-taker’s answers to other questions.
With these sorts of tests, the low sample size continues to be a problem, but part of this high barrier to entry may be the historical nature of how these tests were administered, between accessibility and cost to score. By making the test available online and without charge, the hope is that this may motivate others to try it out.
As far as the types of personalities that are drawn to high-range tests, I defer to Grady Towers’ observations in Noesis #141 regarding the types of personalities that exist across different societies and the corresponding tests used for their admission. Perhaps there is something to be said for stressing both verbal and non-verbal aptitude.
Jacobsen: The Adaptive IQ Test website opens with a series of claims:
This is an online IQ test that contains several innovative features. Here are some reasons to take this test.
As you answer more questions, the estimate of your rank in the population becomes more accurate.
You see a graph of your estimated rank, not just a single number.
You are allowed to skip questions and come back to them.
You are automatically asked questions that will help make your estimated rank more accurate.
As more people take the test, the graphs become more accurate.
There are a number of anti-cheating devices being used.
The results of this test may be used for acceptance into various high IQ societies.
Any points of clarification that have been needed on any of these at any time in the past from prospective/actual test-takers or the curious? They can be stated here.
Shea: Some of these points are better characterized as statements of fact about the functionality of the test itself, such as the ability to skip questions. One point to clarify about items 1 and 5 is that the estimate for a completed test may change over time as the test is repeatedly normed. There are plenty of cases across other IQ tests where an individual completes the test and receives an estimate only for subsequent test-takers to receive a lower estimate with the same raw score due to the ceiling being lowered through norms over time, and vice versa. As the adaptive test is normed here, all estimates are updated in unison, preventing this discrepancy between raw scores and percentile estimates across different test-takers. As mentioned earlier, both the estimate at the time of the test’s completion and the most up-to-date estimate are presented for completeness.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Shea: The gold standard for high-range testing has always been Ron Hoeflin’s series of tests. These serve as the foundation for much of the existing questions in the current early version of the Adaptive IQ Test. Beyond him, there are many test constructors who have quite novel test items that could be of inspiration.
There is value in multidimensional tests that select for both high-range spatial and verbal problems. I again cite Grady Towers, who wrote of this back in 1998 over the course of several letters published in Noesis #141, where he reflected on the implications for high IQ societies that admit members on the basis of tests that stress both verbal and spatial skills as opposed to one or the other.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from helping in the making of a test?
Shea: It is important to not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good.” There will always be shortcomings with any approach. Care needs to be taken to minimize these shortcomings and accommodate them to the extent possible.
Perhaps a second learning is that there is a high-range test vacuum of sorts, and that vacuum is being filled with any number of experimental high-range tests. This is not necessarily an issue in itself, as many of these test items are intriguing and derived from historical best practices, including the very test being discussed here. More to the point, ideally, those with a formal background in psychometrics would be more involved. I am happy to help where I can, but I also recognize my own limits in this space.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Daniel.
Shea: Thank you for giving me the chance to highlight this project! I feel the need to stress that it is very much in an alpha state and that development is ongoing, but that progress is being made. Special thanks go to Chris Cole and Dean Inada for the decades of work that they put into this long before I arrived, Werner Couwenbergh for his hard work on the interpenetrating solid variants, those who provided input thus far (John Fahy, Nathan Hays, Rick Rosner, and Glen Wooten, among others), and everyone who has provided feedback. I am but a vessel, helping to bring this to fruition where possible.
Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12
Bob Williams & Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Abstract
Bob Williams is a Member of the Triple Nine Society, Mensa International, and the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. He discusses: the massive split between young men and women in higher education, noting the societal shifts and personality differences contributing to this trend; women’s increased focus on academic work, resulting in higher grades and career pursuits; delayed or omitted marriage and childbirth due to birth control technologies; men still dominate STEM fields while women gravitate towards humanities and people-oriented careers; the debate on sex differences in intelligence with reference to Haier and Colom’s work; the “corrected” SAT and WISC tests for eliminating sex differences in g; Richard Lynn’s Bayesian model linking head size to intelligence but disputes the Flynn Effect’s impact on g; Helmuth Nyborg’s job suspension and court battles over his research on sex differences in intelligence; Christopher Brand’s firing and depublishing incident due to his book on general intelligence; the controversial nature of psychology and the replication crisis in intelligence research; the Gaussian distribution of intelligence but questions its validity at extreme ends; the lack of scandalous claims on extrapolated IQs above 4 sigma; high-IQ societies’ role in pre-internet peer interactions and their evolution with the internet; comments on the variable success of high-IQ societies in meeting member needs; expresses skepticism about AI’s magical problem-solving capabilities while acknowledging its potential in data analysis and medical diagnosis; the social impacts of increasing education and career pursuits among women, leading to demographic changes and below replacement birth rates in developed nations.
Keywords: Gender disparities, higher education trends, career aspirations, academic performance, personality traits, marriage trends, childbirth patterns, birth control impact, STEM fields, humanities preferences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you make of this massive split between young men and young women in colleges, polytechnics, and universities now? It is rather drastic by this time, and nowhere near completing its trend.
Bob Williams: It is an interesting development that presumably has multiple causes. One of those is the shift from society sending men to college so that they can obtain a good job with their degree and support a family, while women were expected to rear children and keep the home. As that changed, women clearly wanted to pursue their own careers and were eager to consume higher education. Another factor is the sex differences we see in personalities. These have led to women often getting higher grades than men in various majors. My take is that women are more likely to focus on academic work and to resist distractions. Trait conscientiousness may be higher for women. The related change that goes with this is delayed or omitted marriage and delayed or omitted childbirth. No doubt, birth control technologies also contributed to these changes in choices. We still see more men going into STEM than women, either as a matter of choice, or ability. The opposite happens in humanities. Even among very bright women, the SMPY (Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth) longitudinal study shows that women are much more inclined to choose career paths that involve working with people than with things (STEM). There remains some disagreement between researchers about the intelligence differences between the sexes. In The Science of Human Intelligence, Haier and Colom* mostly argue for no difference, but with obvious differences on a subject-by-subject basis (particularly math and verbal). Although they treated the topic at length, it left me feeling that some things were simply ignored, such as consistently higher male scores on both SAT-M and SAT-V. They argue that this difference is due to differences in the makeup of the test takers, but the differences go on for too long for this to make sense. Data relating to whether there are sex differences in reaction time, inspection time, polygenic scores, and other measurable factors that are low level and directly measured are missing. As I recall, both SAT and WISC tests have been “corrected” to eliminate differential item functioning (by sex). If test items that are more difficult for women than men are removed, the test logically will have difficulty in showing sex differences in g.
*[Haier, R.J., Colom, R. and Hunt, E., 2023. The Science of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.]
Jacobsen: How statistically significantly different were the Army helmet sizes?
Williams: I don’t know. The data apparently showed that there was an increase in head size for the group being considered (US military). It could have shown different results in other nations. Richard Lynn argued that, using a Bayesian model, measures of child development, including head size, showed general increases in measures that may relate to intelligence. He took this as biological evidence of the Flynn Effect (FE), which was mostly or exclusively positive at that time. The problem was that repeated attempts to show a change in g failed. People in nations with strong FE gains did not show real world gains in measures of validity, nor did they become less intelligent when the FE reversed. The actual gains in child development were almost certainly related to improved diets and medical care causing positive health effects, but not real gains in g.
Jacobsen: How did Nyborg suffer up to losing his job?
Williams: I don’t recall having learned about his earlier relationships with his university. Although I met him in 2005, it was not until the following year that I had a long discussion with him. He was telling me about his job suspension at the University of Aarhus. He appealed to ISIR members to make comments to the Rector. Some responded and I assume that helped. That same year the suspension was canceled and he received a “severe reprimand” over the Skanderborg project (sex differences in general intelligence). [The paper that caused the problem was titled “Sex-related Differences in General Intelligence g, Brain Size, and Social Status.”] Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story. Each time I saw Nyborg he told me about new problems. I cannot recall how many iterations there were, but the general pattern was that he would be fired, then he would sue the university, then the courts would rule in his
favor and he would be rehired. I believe the last court ruling included a monetary award to him. At that point, he was retired, but I don’t recall if the retirement was forced or not. I think there was at least one forced retirement in the saga. [The second paper that fueled the university animosity was titled “The Decay of Western Civilization: Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection.”]
Jacobsen: How did Brand suffer up to losing his job?
Williams: The first I heard of Brand’s troubles was when he published Brand, C. (1996). The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. Chichester, England: Wiley. This was a well-written book about general intelligence, which unfortunately was accurate in its discussion of between-group intelligence differences. Due to this, the publishers received complaints that their book was racist, so Wiley actually de-published it. They apparently collected already printed books and destroyed them. [They didn’t get all of the books. One of my friends has a hard-bound copy of the de-published book.] Brand was reportedly working as a waiter to support himself after losing his job. This seems sad to me. I corresponded with him for a while and he published a piece I wrote about heritability on his webpage. Although I never met him I know one person who worked with him. My impression, from his comments, was that Brand contributed to his problems by brashness and other personality traits. He died in 2017.
Jacobsen: How did both lose their jobs?
Williams: Brand was working at the University of Edinburgh and was fired because the university did not want him discussing politically hot topics. Those topics, however, have been investigated by researchers from various nations. There was nothing in his book, or other sources, that I found to be at odds with similar published work. I listed the two papers that the university used against Nyborg. They accused him of scientific misconduct. Again, his work was sound and consistent with similar research elsewhere. I think that the second paper I listed was particularly important because it properly explains phenomena seen in Western nations as a result of massive migration from low-IQ nations.
Jacobsen: How have they managed since their firings?
Williams: This has been mostly answered above. Brand obviously had a very bad time of it, both in losing his already published book and then his job. He tried to sell the book as a digital copy for a while. Later, he posted the entire manuscript for open access.
Nyborg endured a drawn-out battle in court that lasted for years and went through at least the two instances that I mentioned. He seemed to maintain good spirits, based on my updates from him at conferences. He is 87 now. The last time I saw him, he was 81, strong and in good spirits. We were in Edinburgh in 2018.
Jacobsen: Psychology seems prone to making their semi-prominent or prominent people undergo some controversy. Do you remember the Beth Loftus stuff around False Memory? I had coffee/meal with her, I think, 3 times and interviewed her years ago. Another person who went through – relative to academic life – an awful circumstance.
Williams: I recall encountering some references to false memory, but I know little about it. As I recall, the claim was made that individuals could and did create false memories in others (usually patients). I think that this claim was reasonably well-verified, but I might have a false memory of it.
I agree that psychology has had more than its share of controversy. In the specialty I follow, controversy has been heated, as we have previously discussed. Sir Cyril Burt was an example of protracted controversy. Kamin claimed that Burt falsified data relating to twin IQs, used to compute the heritability of intelligence. This sort of case causes a lot of heat and little light. There were two nasty parts to the charge: First, Burt was dead and had no way to defend himself against the claims. Second, the study in question had no lasting impact on the understanding of the heritability of intelligence. I have a bias relating to Kamin, whom I see as a scoundrel (for other reasons). Rushton claimed to have evidence that the data was not altered. Whether it was or was not altered, it was in agreement with a great deal of research that came up with the same answer.
Arguably, things have gotten worse today, at least in the field of intelligence research. But I suppose psychology, in less quantitative niches, can be criticized as sloppy and difficult to replicate. When the replication “crisis” happened, psychology did not fare well, but the more measurement based area of intelligence research held up reasonably well. A first thought would be that this sort of thing would not be found in the hard sciences, but it was.
Nearly 90 per cent of chemists said that they’d had the experience of failing to replicate another researcher’s result; nearly 80 percent of biologists said the same, as did almost 70 percent of physicists, engineers, and medical scientists. Only a slightly lower percentage of scientists said they’d had trouble in replicating their own results.
From: Ritchie, S., 2020. Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Metropolitan Books.
Jacobsen: Is the true distribution of humanity over the billions of people truly a Bell Curve or something different after or meaningless after 4-sigma?
Williams: I think that it is fair to say that for the 8 billion people on our planet, we can only make guesses based on observations of comparatively small groups and general principles that apply. The Central Limit Theorem is the usual support for a Gaussian distribution, for large data sets. Here is a definition I lifted from Investopedia:
“The central limit theorem (CLT) states that the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size gets larger, regardless of the population’s distribution.”
The whole thing about assuming a Gaussian distribution is reasonable and is seen in countless studies of intelligence distribution. But… These studies simply don’t have data at 4-sigma. Real-world studies are typically based on sample sizes that have (hopefully) adequate statistical power. If you browse through Bias in Mental Testing (Jensen), you will see various distributions from several data sets and different IQ tests. They all resemble a Gaussian distribution, but they don’t extend into the stratosphere.
The claim has been made (including by Jensen) that there are “fat tails” in the real distribution, which I have not seen supported by any well-designed study. As anyone who has read my prior answers knows, I dispute that the definition of intelligence remains fixed at the very high end. I have no idea about the low end, other than that it typically has two incarnations. The non-pathological distribution is the representation of IQ distribution without including people suffering from organic retardation. This is the distribution used to norm a test. The full distribution includes those people who have forms of organic retardation. When they are included, the distribution shows a skew to the low end, for obvious reasons.
The intriguing aspect related to studying this question is that we are moving into the age of DNA and brain imaging methods of measuring intelligence. A relatively few years ago, we could not measure IQ from DNA. Now, it can be done, but with a large error at the individual level. When large genomic data sets are used (as in national collections), the noise in the measurement cancels out, leaving an agreement with traditional IQ test data that is around 92%, using contemporary calculations. If we project a few decades into the future, the limitations we have today will seem primitive. Similarly, it is likely that brain imaging technology will be capable of providing robust measures of intelligence and we might even expect that a ratio scale will eventually be created.
Jacobsen: Were there any scandalous acts around claims of extrapolated IQs above 4 sigma?
Williams: I don’t know of any. In fact, when I became interested in cognitive science (early 90s) one of the things that I noticed was that the literature was overwhelmingly focused on the range of ± 2.5 sigma. Even with studies that were intended to be about high intelligence, most were looking at the top 1%. The Terman longitudinal study is one example. The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth longitudinal study eventually got into a range that went to the 1-in-10,000 level of math ability, based on the SAT taken at age 12. One thing I failed to ask David Lubinski (with adequate opportunities) was if they ever compared the SAT data to comprehensive IQ tests (WAIS or Woodcock-Johnson).
It is reasonable to consider that most research is funded by grants of some kind and those are most often aimed at factors seen over the full range of intelligence, such as relationships between IQ and SES, academic success, career choice, and the sorts of social factors that were reported in The Bell Curve.
Jacobsen: What purpose do high-IQ societies serve now?
Williams: Before the internet, these societies enabled bright people to find peers for discussions (and more often, arguments) and occasional group meetings. The journals offered a place to write and share thoughts about things that would possibly be of little interest to the general public. It is my opinion that the need that is present in bright people to interact with peers, is best met by selective universities, very demanding university majors, and employment in research labs, think tanks, and other jobs that require lots of brain power. People who were not able to use one or more of these, probably benefited more from the societies than those who were doing work in cosmology or theoretical mathematics.
The internet suddenly changed our lives by granting fast access to people around the globe. It created numerous social media paths that now allow bright people to quickly find and communicate with peers. This hasn’t made people more genteel, but it has at least provided paths for both personal-level communications and for more lengthy and public missive distributions through blogs.
Those of us who actively participated in the old-style societies still retain some interest in them and still use them for the initially-intended purposes. My guess is that there will be more movement to web-based groups. One aspect of web groups is that they can be quickly assembled and just as quickly dissolved.
Jacobsen: In my analysis, we have had between 100-125, probably, high-IQ societies, about half – off the top – are defunct. The rest range from journals like the Mega Society’s Noesis to journals and meetings such as Mensa International. Obviously, these provide something to members. Have they met the needs of their intended audiences based on the original intent of such societies and organizations, or have they fallen short?
Williams: I think this has varied from group to group, with some enduring for decades and others evaporating. Mensa is a special case, since it has the advantage of a potentially high membership (due to its low entry threshold) and it is organized to hold regional gatherings that mostly work well, and an annual gathering that draws a lot of attendees. These tend to be structured around social activities and various presentations by people with expertise in interesting fields. When I was much younger, I attended these and found that the best ones were well-received. Some of them experienced planning-, budget-, and space-related problems. Mensa also has some sober components, such as projects that help distribute books, activities for bright children, the Mensa Research Journal, and a traveler hosting program.
One of the unfortunate issues that sometimes happens is that battles between members sometimes end up as legal confrontations. Examples of this include the dispute over Mega Society East vs. Mega Society and the series of suits from Clint Williams that caused a lot of problems for TNS.
Jacobsen: Are we putting a sort of magical-mystical problem-solving essence onto the concept of AI? These are new. We do not know the extent of impact, limits and scope, for example. I feel
as if we are inundated by science fiction, where I see a faith in AI as if a panacea to ills. Certain areas, we have seen empirical evidence of powerful computation plus human expertise used to inform the systems making superhuman performance.
Williams: I was surprised when AI suddenly became a big public topic. It had been under development and in use for some applications for a long time, so I was expecting an incremental improvement from time to time, but then we had ChatGPT and other systems available to anyone and able to do at least some “tricks” that were undeniably advanced. Of these, the ability to communicate in human-like form was startling. Then we saw AI images that were photo-realistic and even able to replicate the appearances and voices of well-known public figures. Some of this (deepfakes) has reached the point where it certainly has the potential to cause both social and legal problems.
The part of the uproar that I find to be premature is the fear that AI will become a supernatural alien force of the type we saw in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. This kind of fear is easy to generate and strikes me as presently premature and probably not even a concern for the distant future. When I see our government trying to regulate AI development, I cringe. Imagine the totally uninformed people who already show us that their jobs could be done by AI or maybe an intelligent monkey, trying to prohibit us from developing the things that our global adversaries are not going to abandon. If nothing else, the military aspects (including control of communications) of this are as essential to free nations as are their air, ground, space and sea forces.
To me, the excitement about AI is that we already have evidence of it being able to examine massive amounts of data and to learn how to use it to develop insights that would otherwise be impossible. Consider the example of brain imaging. The problem with this is that each scan can show slightly different content, causing interpretation problems for researchers. But AI can take in details of the scans and use those to reach conclusions that are amazingly accurate, even when the researchers have no idea how the AI did its job. This has obvious implications for medical diagnosis and should make the role of doctors turn into something more like the role of a radiologist who takes images, but stops at that point, letting the AI read and interpret them. Of the hundreds of papers I have heard presented at ISIR conferences, I would think that all of them would benefit from deep analysis with AI. The problem we have with finding single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) that are associated with intelligence is the tiny effect size of a single SNP. This has left us with knowing what happens without being able to find even half of the associated SNPs. Right now, we have found 1,271 such SNPs; the experts tell us that the number that defines intelligence lies in the range of 10,000 to 40,000. We have already found the SNPs with average effect sizes of about 0.01%, but the rest presumably have smaller effect sizes. Of course much larger genomic data sets will help, but I believe that the next breakthrough could be by using AI to do its magic.
We hear a lot about AI taking over jobs and some of this may happen, but I believe it will take a good bit of time for corporations to adjust to restructuring their entire operations to operate in concert with AI. Every time I make a phone call to a business, I find that the robotic “push 1 for
this and 2 for that” response irritates me, but then, if I ever reach a living person, they are idiots. I would love to instead talk to a natural language robot who can actually help.
Jacobsen: Women are far more educated than men. Something increasing in effect the younger age one takes into account. A process happening over the last – maybe, 40 years – or something. What does this do to prospects of marriage, family formation, single parenthood, late-age motherhood (e.g., 40+), and so on? I have, for example, as you may have too, seen the push for a change in cultural conversation about parenthood and single parenthood, changing gender roles, and the increase in women having children age 40+ compared to other ages, where we tend to see a decrease in birth rates. There may be an overlay commentary for you, too, where we see in most advanced industrial economies a below replacement rate birth rate across populations, in general. You gave a brief comment on this in Norway, before, and the use of IVF technologies.
Williams: My thought on this topic is that we are at a divergence point where we no longer have time to catch up with the social impacts of our technological progress. My grandmother was 20 years old when the Wright brothers flew for the first time. Her generation was born before electrification. She lived well past the first moon landing. In one lifetime humans experienced air travel (and war), cinema, radio, television, amazing medical advances, early computers, space travel, plastics being used for countless products, the discovery of DNA, and the remaining endless list of life-changing events. But when we look at mankind, it evolved over 200,000 or so years, with time for social and even biological corrections to adapt to the slow increase in knowledge and technology. Now the rate of change is insane. We have not had time to adjust to how people have changed their lives, to the ability to live, not for daily survival efforts, but to a fast-paced world with people flying from nation to nation, to news that reaches us instantly, to laws that were made by earlier generations, and to social norms that have become unstable. We simply don’t have time to adjust. Meanwhile, we have parts of world populations that are still living as hunter-gatherers. The differences between groups expand with evident factors causing increasing friction not only with nearby nations, but with those on any part of the planet.
Among the changes that are consequential are women changing to new roles, many of them more attractive than motherhood, at least to some. This has led to later marriages, omitting marriage, later childbirth, smaller families and more childless couples. The developed nations are seeing below replacement rates of population growth by their native groups, followed by immigration from low-IQ populations into the resulting vacuum. Many commentators have discussed the obvious driver of these changes– modern birth control.
Misconduct Melanie Sakoda is an important figure in cataloguing the crimes of the Easter Orthodox Church
GLOBAL JUSTICE PROJECT
PROJECT COORDINATOR
ALLIANCE OF CHRISTIANS OF CROATIA
Secretary of the Association,
Bojan Jovanović
Melanie Sakoda on Orthodox Clergy-
Related Misconduct
Misconduct Melanie Sakoda is an important figure in cataloguing the crimes of the Easter Orthodox Church.
What is happening in Orthodoxy?
Melanie Sakoda is a Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) Survivor Support Director, SNAP East Bay Leader, and SNAP Orthodox Leader. Here we talk at length on Orthodoxy and clergy-based abuse.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Melanie Sakoda. She is a long-time – some like the term activist, some like someone working for a morally correct cause. You had a lot more time to reflect on the work on this issue. My first question: How did you originally get involved in this work? Because you have been doing this for decades.
Melanie Sakoda: We had an incident in our Church in San Francisco where there was a layman who was a child abuser with multiple convictions. They were allowing him free rein in our parish. Many children got hurt, as far as we can tell. That started it. The reaction when the families came forward was such a backlash. We thought, “Oh my goodness, we are complaining about someone who was only Orthodox for two weeks before his last arrest. What if you were trying to complain about the priest?” So, we decided that we wanted to start a website where people would have some place that they wanted to come, and people could have a sympathetic ear. We started in June of 1999. We took it down in March of 2020.
Jacobsen: For about 21 years, the internet was approximately too big in 1999.
Sakoda: No.
Jacobsen: Or it was smaller than it was in 2020. What was the reaction in 2020 versus 1999? What was the reason for taking it down?
Sakoda: Cappy (Larson), one of her daughters, did the original coding on the original site. Then she stepped down. It was Cappy and me. We are both in our 70s now. We were waiting to see someone stepping forward to take over for us.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: Cappy says, “Maybe we should let them miss us.” [Laughing]
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: So, that is what we did. Because there are expenses associated with maintaining a website, we were paying all the expenses ourselves since we needed more financial support. We had a post office box. We had a voicemail. We were paying for our domain main, then our security. Whenever people do not get the warning sign when they visit your site, it is quite pricey for people on fixed incomes. It was funny. It took some people years to notice that we were gone. I have a Facebook page, at least in the Orthodox churches. I have people who write in asking, “What happened to pokrov.org?”
Jacobsen: Now, this is common. I am finding this common through years and years of doing interviews with people who have left religious groups or who are still in, and have concerns, and want to see things become better, more just. It’s a handful of people who do specific parts of activism over an arc of time. You and Cappy are exemplars of that. So, those people also come under various forms of attack or even abuse. So, what kinds have you encountered? Which ones have been more humorous because you must develop a sense of humour in this industry? What ones could have been more humorous?
Sakoda: The most not-humorous one was Cappy’s daughter, Greta, who was still working with us. We were going to attend a conference in Dallas called Orthodox Christian Laity. Originally, Greta was going by herself, and then she received death threats from this one priest whose family was very unhappy that he had been put on our site. I ended up going with her. That was probably the scariest. One of the funniest things… do you remember when that girl went missing in Aruba many years ago?
Jacobsen: A few people may have gone missing, including Aruba.
Sakoda: It was a big case. She was a young, college-aged, blue-eyed blonde girl who went missing. We used to post on Orthodox message boards.
Jacobsen: Natalee Ann Holloway?
Sakoda: Yes. This priest puts on one of these message boards. I may have it in all of my junk. “Cappy, and you should be Aruba’d.” How inappropriate for a person?
Jacobsen: It just sounds like being an ass.
Sakoda: But the funny thing was, as the years went on, the reaction was very, very hostile at first. As the years went by, it became less hostile. People would send us stuff because they knew we would do something with it or try to do something with it.
Jacobsen: You’re in a safe zone.
Sakoda: It was an interesting experience. I do not regret it. I want to win the lottery, build the site, and hire people to work on it. We will see what happens. I do tell people on my Facebook page. I still have access to most of the information. I could get the information if they want information on someone they saw on the site. In addition to my access to the old website, I sadly have way too many hardcopy files because, of course, when I went to law school. Everything was paper. I tended to keep things on paper rather than on my computer. I have computer files.
Jacobsen: I am surprised you didn’t have anything on microfiche.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Yes, I know, microfiche.
Sakoda: I was about to say. It is pretty decent. I do have stuff on paper. When my husband and I downsized in 2018, we had this huge office with all these bookshelves. I do not have this anymore. I have a lot of the files in boxes [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Yes [Laughing].
Sakoda: Recently, someone asked me about this one group. I swear I have something else. I cannot find the hardcopy file.
Jacobsen: Doing a keyword search on a hardcopy file is hard. What aspects of justice have you reached for people who broadened to you? Has there been anything along those lines of help, or has it been a safe space where people can get information safely, and it has been a positive for them?
Sakoda: When we first started, as you mentioned, 1999 was the internet’s early days. Cappy would call people.
Jacobsen: This is from a home line. There are no cell phones.
Sakoda: There might have been cell phones. When did they start?
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Jacobsen: I don’t know either. Oh! The first one came in 1983. So, she might have had a cell phone.
Sakoda: I am sure it was from her landline.
Jacobsen: Like a rotary phone or something.
Sakoda: An abuser was in the parish. He was part of this group that came into Orthodoxy. They were originally a New Age San Francisco cult called The Holy Order of Man. After Jonestown, they didn’t like being on cult lists. So, they started to look for another place to land. A lot of them began joining the Orthodox churches. Through one of Cappy’s other daughters, we found some guy who was from The Holy Order of Man, saying the Orthodox guy they went to was part of this cult group and had been Greek Orthodox. He was upset when they went with this Metropolitan Pangratios Vrionis of the Archdiocese of Vasiloupolis. Because he said, “He is an abuser. He’s been convicted.” We found this little thing on some Orthodox forum on the internet. You need help to look online for this information. All our information was from Pennsylvania and differed from what county or anything. So, Cappy started calling up every county and looking. “Do you have criminal records for this figure?” How hard could it be? Pangratios Vrionis, that’s not a name…
Jacobsen: …very rare, even for the Greeks!
Sakoda: She finally found him. The clerk there at the courthouse was very sympathetic. I shouldn’t tell you this. She not only sent us the records without charging us, but she went – and like me – looked in archives. She had things in boxes. She found a few more pages. She sent them all to us for free. That was one of the first cases we publicized on our website, which was Pangratios Vrionis. After it went public that he had this conviction, he was still operating as a bishop in Queens, New York.
Jacobsen: It is, probably, a big diocese.
Sakoda: Yes. Newer victims came forward.
Jacobsen: Of course.
Sakoda: He was convicted a second time. That was our first venture into it. Originally, we did a lot of that. Cappy is on her phone talking to clerks in various counties nationwide. But as time went on, as I said, people would start sending us stuff. They would say, “So-and-so is convicted; here is a link to the article.” Maybe, as the internet, too, picked up. There are some counties where you can look online for the records, but not as much as I would like. It became easier to find information.
Jacobsen: I want to search this one thing for this question. National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), “One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives… In eight out of 10 cases of rape, the victim knew the person who sexually assaulted them.” So, those are the numbers to indicate the extreme forms of sexual violence. Both experience them naturally, though women often experience them from men and men they know. So, if those are the rates in the US, how are the rates in the Church? Are they the same, or are they higher? If they are higher, what is the point of the Church as moral relevance to these people’s lives?
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Sakoda: The trouble is, as I mentioned when we were talking earlier, there aren’t real reliable statistics of abuse in the Orthodox churches. Since 2002, the Catholic Church has published lists of abusers by the diocese. There is the John Jay Report. There is not, to my knowledge, not a single Orthodox jurisdiction in this country that publishes information about their abusers. The closest we came was the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese for a while.
You will see a priest was removed, but you do not know why. Did he decide that he doesn’t want to be a priest anymore? Was he embezzling? Or was he sexually abusing someone in his parish, whether man, woman, or child? They don’t publish that. For a very short while, the Greeks froze or suspended. It might, if someone was defrocked or suspended, have had to do with the settlement in a Greek case. That someone was one of their non-monetary requests. It only lasted a short time. You don’t know. You can track it. Another thing related to the Orthodox cases is that the Catholics have the official Catholic directory. It is published every year. It is a huge book. It lists all the priests in the US and their assignments. The Orthodox do not have that kind of resource to track people. So, if you saw the spotlight movie, you would remember., They are looking for gaps.
People are frequently on ‘leave of absence’ or ‘medical leaves.’ We do not have that resource. I do have many directories. Now, they’re more likely to be online. I just downloaded a copy and put it on my overloaded computer. It is really hard to find information about the Orthodox cases. They’re under the radar. Are you familiar with the calendar issue? Some of the Orthodox churches use a different calendar than the others. What it is, a Pope, Pope Gregory instituted a calendar to start adding leap years because they realized.
Jacobsen: Oh! He stole that from Dionysus Exiguus. I am aware of that one.
Sakoda: Oh, okay, some Orthodox churches will celebrate Christmas on January 7th. They are on what is known as the Julian calendar, but it is a modified Julian calendar because it includes a leap year. So, believe it or not, this is a huge issue in Orthodoxy, particularly in this country. When you have abusers, “I decided the calendar was not where it was at. I decided the new calendar is the reason for all the problems in Orthodoxy.” Abusers were using that as an excuse why they were transitioning from one Church to another.
Jacobsen: A calendar.
Sakoda: Yes. There is this joke. “How many Orthodox does it change to a lightbulb?”
Jacobsen: How many?
Sakoda: “What? Change? No.”
Jacobsen: That’s right. That is why the men don’t shave. When asked why the men grow such long beards, I remember a funny response. He responds, “I would be more curious about the reverse. Why did the men start shaving?” I will give them that one.
Sakoda: It is funny. Some of the ultra-conservativism in Orthodoxy is not new. I remember my grandmother; I cannot remember if it was about wearing a scarf in Church or wearing a pantsuit to Church. My grandmother responded, “Of course, I wear a pantsuit to Church. What do you think this is, the old country?” [Laughing] My grandparents were immigrants, as was my mother. They came from a different world. Some of these things, I don’t know if you have come across the other funny thing. This is called the toll houses. Have you heard about the toll houses?
Jacobsen: No.
Sakoda: They have nothing to do with cookies. It is the theory that when you die. Christ does not judge you. You go through this series of toll houses. Where the Devil judges you, it has become popular in more conservative circles. Father Seraphim Rose was in that theology. The trouble is that it is used. It would be best if you had a spiritual father. You must do what your spiritual father tells you to get through the toll houses. I had one man tell me. “Okay, if your spiritual father tells you to kill someone, would you?” He said, “Yes.”
Jacobsen: Wait. The spiritual father has more authority than the Decalogue.
Sakoda: Yes, than anything, your conscience, the Bible.
Jacobsen: That’s kind of troublesome.
Sakoda: It is very troublesome. Some of these groups were amassing. They had weapons caches.
Jacobsen: Like AK47s and grenades?
Sakoda: Yes.
Jacobsen: What?
Sakoda: Because they are preparing for the end of days.
Jacobsen: Of course, you need ammunition and weaponry for demons. They probably watched Constantine too much or something.
Sakoda: It was a different world to me. What I started to say, I was telling my father’s youngest sister about this. She has been Orthodox her entire life. She says, “I have never heard of toll houses.” [Laughing] Because people are not well-versed in their religion. Someone comes along with this snow-white beard and is presented as an elder.
Jacobsen: Looking like Jehovah in the illustrated Bible or something.
Sakoda: One man told me once he was in Greece someplace. He met this woman. They had a brief fling. The next day, he went to see this elder. The elder told him exactly what he had done the night before. So, that must mean the elder was clairvoyant. I said to him. “Or that the elder sent the woman to you, which is, probably, more likely.” The idea is that the elder tells you to meet this man and have sex with him. You do it. Otherwise, you will not go through the toll houses.
Jacobsen: It is the unquestioned authority. It will be different per community. But that fundamental of unquestioned authority is the fundamental issue.
Sakoda: I was surprised. The money for these monasteries was supposedly coming from the Russian mafia.
Jacobsen: Ha!
Sakoda: I have much information about those allegations and why they thought they were. The idea, especially now, is with Putin and the invasion of Ukraine. It is Russian money. There are monasteries with guns, supposedly. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of it because I wouldn’t set foot in those monasteries [Laughing]. You must wear a tablecloth on your head if you are a woman.
Jacobsen: The gun in churches thing is, ironically, American.
Sakoda: Yes [Laughing].
Jacobsen: The tablecloth on the head, that’s more – I don’t know – fundamentalist Islam or fringe Christian groups in the United States.
Sakoda: It has become more and more of a thing within Orthodoxy. As you see more and more converts coming into Orthodoxy, they are benignly brought in by these groups. My aunts spent their entire time in the Church. “They don’t know what they’re talking about.” Hats, maybe, and head coverings were optional when I grew up. I must admit. In the 50s, we did wear hats when we went to Church. Not in the sense of having to cover your hair or anything. You see little girls who have to have ankle-length skirts with these big head coverings. To me, there is something wrong with it. As one woman I used to work with, she was a priest’s wife. She had a PhD working in the area of clergy sex abuse. She says, “When you start to think about that, what is that telling people? Children are sexual objects.” She thought it was abusive. In some places, you could get your bathing suits from the Mennonites or whatever [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Probably better than the Mormons; they have full-body underwear that they think can protect you from bullets. If it works, that’s great, but call me skeptical!
Sakoda: All children should have them [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Especially if you go to a Russian Orthodox Church [Laughing] or an American church.
Sakoda: Orthodoxy has changed since I was a child. It has not changed for the better.
Jacobsen: Has the core issue of abuse changed significantly other than the fact that it is coming out more?
Sakoda: I don’t think it has changed. I think it was sad when we first started talking about what had happened at our Church and started talking to priests whom I trusted/admired; they all kept saying, “Abuse is unknown in the Orthodox church.”
Jacobsen: Ha! Yes, I saw some vague commentary by some Orthodox priests about that, where they were more or less saying, “Look, it doesn’t happen at all or as much in our Church. Regardless, we’re not the Catholics, and look at them.” That’s the argument. It is an insidious and disgusting argument if that’s your standard.
Sakoda: I took a paper. The Orthodox Church of America was having its annual or bi-annual conference. I didn’t register. I went. I had my books out. As people entered the conference, I was handing out my subversive literature.
Jacobsen: Excellent, way to go, good job, we appreciate you.
Sakoda: The funny thing was that this was, again, one of those things that made it seem like Cappy was finding the conviction for Pangratios. The colour I chose for my little booklets was the same as the liturgy for the conference [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Nice.
Sakoda: People were grabbing them, thinking they were liturgy books.
Jacobsen: No!
Sakoda: They were opening them.
Jacobsen: Surprise.
Sakoda: Surprise! I don’t remember if I learned how he got it. I got this card from this man talking about his daughter being abused by an Orthodox priest. It was somewhere around the Chicago area. He was telling a lie about that. That, yes, it happens. They don’t talk about it. Or they cover it up. There was a case from the 1800s that was in the papers about an Orthodox priest abusing somebody.
Jacobsen: Can you send me that?
Sakoda: I could if I could find it, Scott [Laughing].
Jacobsen: It is not a small project. This kind of thing. It takes time.
Sakoda: I have a closet full of papers four big boxes. As I said, I have a penchant for keeping things hard, not scanning, and putting them on my computer. But it has been a problem. If you don’t talk about a problem, you can’t solve it. That’s my issue. If you want people to stay in the Church, you must minister to the hurt people—the direct victims and their family members. Many family members leave after this kind of incident, too.
Jacobsen: They either convert out or stop believing.
Sakoda: If the Church is the arc of salvation, then you should have everyone on board. It would help if you didn’t reject the people who have been injured. It is a big shock when they think, “We are the injured party. We got to the Church. We expect to be embraced. ‘I am so sorry. What can we do for you?’” That does not happen. I do not recall a victim saying it. It could be the ones who do, do not contact me. It does not happen. Part of it may be a need for more education. What do you do when someone comes and tells you that? What should the response be?
Jacobsen: Some of the most recent Canadian Armed Forces. In the 2022 data published December 5th, 2023, most Canadian Armed Forces members don’t think it is something they do; it’s a lifestyle with a contract they sign. Over half of Canadian Armed Forces members either deal with it informally – that’s another category, and those who do file a report figure something will be done, or more will be done. So, it would help if you got those stories. So, even the self-selected groups reporting on this are the more hopeful groups; other sets are not reporting it: Dealing with it themselves or among their family. They leave. Some try reconciling it with their faith, God, or religion. I imagine that being a very difficult line to thread.
Sakoda: Yes, because, I think, one of the unfortunate things, usually, when you go to a church or a Christian church, “You need to forgive and forget.”
Jacobsen: That’s toxic.
Sakoda: It’s not how abuse manifests itself in people’s lives. You could be going along thinking, “I’ve put my abuser out of my mind.” Maybe the child turns the age of you when you were abused; then it brings it back up. For survivors, it is more of an up-and-down rollercoaster. What does it mean to forgive in that case? My best definition is that you are not thinking about this, not holding onto all of this anger and angst. You are moving on with your life.
Jacobsen: Right, it has been integrated.
Sakoda: What has happened to you has been done; it will not change.
Jacobsen: That part can’t be changed and is the hardest to accept.
Sakoda: Yes, I have a lot of Orthodox priests that said nasty things to me. One accused me that if you say this to people, it will damage them. I said, “No, if you have a child that is in a car accident and loses a leg, can that child go on and have a happy life? Of course. Will it ever get another leg? No.” Sexual abuse is the same thing. It is a permanent injury. So, what you want is you want it to heal nicely with the scar, not to be a constant abscess.
Jacobsen: What else have they said to you?
Sakoda: Our favourite one, this is another funny one.
Jacobsen: This is the point of doing this work for those reading this. You will only make it long-term if you have a sense of humour.
Sakoda: No, you laugh at things that are not funny, but you laugh at things all the time. What is the alternative – being angry and crying all the time? A priest said Cappy and I were obvious lesbians.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: I called Cappy and asked, “Did you see this? Should we tell our husbands?” [Laughing]
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: I’ve been married for 49 years this year. She’s been married longer. It’s like, “Gee, should we tell Greg and Robert?” Anything or we were angry.
Jacobsen: Yes, many atheists get that when they’re critiquing religious injustice. It is the same as speaking out in the Church.
Sakoda: My favourite response was, “Why aren’t you angry that children are being permanently injured in the name of God?”
Jacobsen: Should you be angry with me?
Sakoda: Yes, shouldn’t you be angry with me? You don’t have to throw rocks or take those machine guns.
Jacobsen: I take anger, but not necessarily in its obvious forms of pitchforks, torches, rocks, and guns. It is the long-term burn of letter writing, campaigning, filing reports, press releases, interviewing, and gathering databases.
Sakoda: If you want to look at it, as I told someone too, Christ took the whips from the moneychangers and drove them out of the temple. There is a precedent for some anger. Then you get a response. “What? Do you think you’re Christ?”
Jacobsen: Isn’t he supposed to be the example for these folks?
Sakoda: It is an example. It shows you there is a time and a place. My uncle, an Orthodox priest, was my father’s youngest brother. This came to me through a convoluted process, which I won’t get into. He once told a woman who was struggling. She went to him for confession. A relative abused her children. She said, “I cannot forgive them for what they did.” My uncle told her, “Christ is going on his ministry and saying, ‘Your sins are forgiven. Your sins are forgiven. Your sins are forgiven.’” She goes, “What did he say on the Cross? ‘Father, forgive me.’” He said, “Don’t try to be better than Christ.” For whatever reason, it released her load. She said that she was doing the best she could and that she didn’t have to forgive them. She should say, “God, it is up to you.” For many survivors, particularly those struggling with remaining a part of the Church or not, that is a very meaningful thought. “I do not have to embrace my abuser.” They can wash their hands of them.
Jacobsen: Our minds only work on remembering salient information. Trauma is very salient to a person to avoid that situation again. That’s why it is trauma and highly remembered. The phrase you said about forgive and forget doesn’t fit our cognitive system, but it works: Forgive and don’t forget is the key.
Sakoda: Don’t forgive, but live a happy life anyway.
Jacobsen: It is up to the person whether they forgive. It is not up to the community, the priest, or anyone else. For some people, forgiving is not the right choice for them.
Sakoda: If you look at it, as I said, for people still trying to be within the religion, if the idea is your sins won’t be forgiven, it is fear. “How do I do this? I will be damned because I cannot forgive.” That’s why I said what my uncle said to this woman. It gave her much comfort because he wasn’t demanding. He didn’t say, “How terrible, you are going to Hell if you don’t forgive your relative for sexually abusing your children.” He said, “Let God sort it out.” You go and live your life. I think that’s not an easy thing to do anyway. It is harder to do if you are still trapped in this idea. “Oh my God, I am damning myself if I can’t do this.”
Jacobsen: After 2020, what are the updates on these kinds of cases for the Orthodox Church? I will be working on an analysis of the materials that Hermina and Katherine gave me. It is a year-by-year chronology of what they have so far, summarizing and breathing new life into those popular or unpopular news reports.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: It covers a little bit. It doesn’t have legal force. It takes people like yourself, Hermina, Katherine, Lucy, and others to make things happen. I am nothing. All the people I am aware of working on this regarding Eastern Orthodox traditions are women who are approximately 40 years old and older.
Sakoda: And up and up! [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Right, so, what is it about women in those communities and being in the latter half of life, statistically speaking, that puts that demographic in a position to speak on these topics over a long period and to put in the hard work that is doing statistical analysis, getting data, getting the stories, and being a resource for people?
Sakoda: Part of it, religion has always been more of a women’s province anyway. When you have a community, for the Orthodox and the Catholics, you do not have women priests. You do not even have women deacons anymore. Although, there is a revival of that going on in the Orthodox churches. So, it is a man-centred thing.
Jacobsen: True.
Sakoda: I think men and women react a little bit differently to trauma. Part of it could be, too. I remember the MeToo Movement, which started or exploded, and there were all these things about women posting MeToo and talking about what they do to protect themselves. There was a man puzzled. He posted, “What do you do to avoid sexual assault?” He goes, “Stay out of prison.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: Women are constantly under assault or unwelcome touching. I think it gives them a more sympathetic perspective when someone comes and says, “This happened to me.” Maybe they are more likely to believe it happened to you because it happened to them. I don’t think you could interact with an adult woman who hasn’t been assaulted in some form or another. You’re on the train or bus, and someone grabs your butt. Men don’t experience that as often. Not all men, but maybe that’s a variable.
Jacobsen: I experienced some of it. I was working at a low-grade pub.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: I worked in the back of the house, sometimes in the front. I worked at four restaurants simultaneously and did janitorial for 2 of them overnight, seven days a week. I remember one bartender. She would ask me to reach for something and grab my stomach, ass. That harassment was not requested [Laughing]. I don’t think, from what I am reading and have heard and been told, that’s nearly as pervasive as it has been for many women.
Sakoda: I think it doesn’t help that for many men, particularly if a man assaulted them. The idea is, “Why didn’t you fight him off?” You get a little of that as a woman. As a woman, you will often get, “What were you wearing?”
Jacobsen: Same tone in the question, too. I’m noticing. “Why didn’t you fight him off?” is “What were you wearing?” What did you do to call this upon yourself?
Sakoda: Truthfully, if I am being charitable, people’s self-protectiveness. If it can happen to you, then it can happen to me. Therefore, you must have done something to bring it onto yourself. Otherwise, it can happen to me.
Jacobsen: the question will assume men’s strength and self-defence regarding aggression. For the women, I am getting two points there. On the one hand, what are you wearing? Many women’s power in society has to do with their beauty. That’s what has been assigned. On the other hand, how they relate to one another in terms of telling their stories is relational. It is seeing that story in another person.
Sakoda: The other thing, something that you said. My book club read this book by Deborah Tannen once, You Don’t Understand. She is a linguist. She is saying men and women speak different languages. She puts it to the men, originally hunters, and women, the gatherers. So, the men, you had to have someone in charge. You had to have a hierarchy. You did what you were told. You didn’t talk about it. You said, “You go there. You go there. This is what we are going to do.” Women would be spending all day talking and gathering stuff. So, women talk to create relationships between themselves. Men talk to convey information.
Jacobsen: As a general tendency, when men relate to one another, picture them sitting at a log and speaking parallel, not looking at each other. Women, it is face-to-face.
Sakoda: How about that? [Laughing] I like that. All of us tried to get our husbands to read the book. The worst was my husband because he was puzzled when I told him this theory; he is smart. He went to Yale. He goes, “I don’t understand. We have a relationship. You’re my wife.” It’s not exactly what I am talking about regarding a relationship. Even within SNAP, the women leaders talk to each other. We know what is going on in each other’s lives.
Jacobsen: “How are you doing? Cindy came back from a funeral and is having a really hard time. Kathryn and her kids are doing fine. One has just entered a hard business school, and the other is sick.” [Laughing] This stuff.
Sakoda: It builds relationships instead of having someone in charge calling the shots, and there is a pecking order. Women can be vicious. Don’t get me wrong, particularly teenage girls.
Jacobsen: I agree with Margaret Atwood. I don’t think women are angels or demons.
Sakoda: They have a different way of relating to one another than men. You notice this in your marriage, going to the book club, because you’re not on the same wavelength. Women want to talk about something to happen. Men are like, “What do you want me to do?”
Jacobsen: It conveys data for action instead of narrative-building for relationship sustaining.
Sakoda: Yes, that may make women more sympathetic to survivors coming forward. They are trying to connect to them. I don’t think most women become women without experiencing some sexual assault along the way.
Jacobsen: Can you say that again? It is a very powerful phrase.
Sakoda: I don’t think some women haven’t been sexually assaulted, if they are being honest. They may not think about it. Someone is groping you on the bus and turning around and not knowing who did it. It is just a fact of life. Women do things. My husband was surprised. I was saying that most women when they park their cars. They park under a street light. They carry their keys in their hands to poke someone’s eyes out. When I open the car door at night, if I am by myself, I check in the back seat first.
Jacobsen: That last one might be Hollywood influence.
Sakoda: It is something you read. Women’s magazines talk about all kinds of things. My husband said, “Do you look at the back seat?” I said, “Yes.” It could be in the hood and popped up out. [Laughing]
Jacobsen: [Laughing]
Sakoda: Or if, sometimes, women are waiting for an elevator and a guy gives you a creepy vibe, you pretend, “I forgot. You go ahead,” because you don’t want a ride with him. One of the books I have read in the past few years is Gavin de Becker. It is called the Gift of Fear. He had a second book too. Women are taught to be more polite. My daughter has his complaint. Men always interrupt women.
Jacobsen: True. I do it!
Sakoda: [Laughing] But they do not even think about it, interrupting. Anyways, women who are supposed to be polite are supposed to accept that. When you are interrupted, you do not say anything. You say, “Quiet down.” That is one of the things. Maybe it is why women are more subject to assault because they are trying to be polite. They ignore. It is waiting for an elevator, getting creeped out, and getting in an elevator with him because you don’t want to think he creeped you out [Laughing]. It is important. Sometimes, in church situations, people ignore this: They might see the priest or teacher hugging a child. It will tingle their spidey sense. But they won’t do anything about it, particularly in church situations. “I have such a dirty mind to think that Father could have anything nefarious in mind when he is hugging this child.” It is like, “No, for whatever reason, we get these feelings. We need to pay attention to them.”
Jacobsen: Are most priest abusers likely, so far, never to have come to justice? Those who have been abused have stayed in positions of authority or been promoted.
Sakoda: Yes. As I said, I do not have as good a frame on the Orthodox because there isn’t as good of a frame. People used to ask me, “What is the rate of abuse in the Orthodox churches?” How would I know? All I know is that if you look at the names on my site, I probably have ten more I can’t put on the site because someone will write to me: Father So-and-So abused me. I keep a file on it in case someone else comes on down the road and comes and claims, “Father So-and-So abused me.” Now, I forgot what you asked [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Most who have abused, have they not come to justice?
Sakoda: I do not have as much information, but I know in the Catholic context. Very few priests have been prosecuted for their crimes. Part of that is the statute of limitations problem. After a sufficient time, the statute of limitations has expired. In the US, the Stogner decision, California tried to do this end run around, saying that they wouldn’t change the definitions of the crimes or the penalties. Still, they would allow criminal cases to be brought forward beyond the statute of limitations. The US Supreme Court said, “No, you cannot do that. It is a violation of constitutional rights. You cannot retroactively change the criminal statute of limitations.” People usually come forward between 50 and 70. It is a joke, not a nice one, that the statute of limitations stands for “Shit Out of Luck.
Jacobsen: How did George Carlin put it? “You’d be SOL and JWF. Shit out of luck and jolly well fucked.”
Sakoda: So, there’s that thing. If you figure out that the churches and the Orthodox Church are doing this, I do not have as much data. They are not reporting them to law enforcement. That is why you don’t have as many prosecutions. I am trying to think. This is one of the first big cases. I think in 1999. In an Orthodox monastery in Texas, two people were reported down there for child sex abuse. Abbott and his righthand man, what’s his name? Father Benedict Green, the other guy was Jeremiah Hitt. Besides the Pangratios conviction we uncovered, they were the first. Hitt went to trial. Benedict pleaded guilty. But you still had all these people who didn’t believe it.
Jacobsen: That is not the controversial part. That’s pretty par for the course. Even the guy who ran the human trafficking, sex trafficking, and sex cult, Keith Raniere, was part of the HBO special or documentary series, The Vow, where he was Vanguard in NXIVM. He got life in prison and several of his accomplices as well, men and women. Still, many people defend him when in prison.
Sakoda: Yes, in this particular case, in 2006, there was a second set of charges. New victims are coming forward multiple victims. I cannot remember if 5 or 6 of them were on charges and were all convicted. Benedict Green killed himself before he could go to trial because I think he knew he would go to prison. After all, this was his second conviction. This was in Texas. You don’t want to go to prison in Texas or Florida. [Laughing]
Jacobsen: No! The weather sucks.
Sakoda: No prison is truly humane, in my view, having visited various prisons in California. They’re particularly bad. In Florida, you can get in a chain gang, too. Do you know what a chain gang is?
Jacobsen: No.
Sakoda: They let the prisons go to highway labour. How old was that Paul Newman movie about that chain gang? There is a staple in the South. You won’t find them in the rest of the country. They might have programs. California has a program where you can be released to go and fight wildfires.
Jacobsen: I honestly don’t know what is worse: firefighting for free or being in prison.
Sakoda: At least you’re out. For many people, it is hard not to be outside.
Jacobsen: It is like the one man you’re saying about MeToo. He would probably be out fighting fires rather than being in prison, afraid of being sexually assaulted.
Sakoda: He was probably 400 or 500 pounds. They shouldn’t have him fighting fires.
Jacobsen: Structurally, it takes work.
Sakoda: Besides, in his first criminal trial, he came to his first criminal trial with an oxygen tank. This is a common tactic for abusers to show up on crutches in a wheelchair.
Jacobsen: It is to garner sympathy.
Sakoda: Yes, it was funny. He had just been to Colorado without oxygen. So, people accepted it. The second set of charges when they came down. In some ways, that was a turning point. That was when we got more credibility. The first charge, people said – my other favourite thing, is that “Father only plead guilty to prevent that victim from having to lie on the witness stand.” When you plead guilty, you must say I did this, did this, under oath. Is it better for him to lie? It is amazing how little people want to believe this happened. Orthodoxy is perfectly willing to believe it happened in the Catholic Church.
Jacobsen: It is a different frame on NIMBY. It happens not in my backyard, but not over here.
Sakoda: They will say the most, “They have those celibate priests.” Orthodox priests can be celibate, too. Some of them are abusers. All Orthodox bishops either have to be widowed. There have been bishops who put their wives in monasteries. They have to be unmarried, too. So, you do have celibate clergy portions in the Orthodox Church. But I think people have the idea that it is a choice. You have to decide if you are celibate or married before you are ordained, and you have a choice. But what happens to a priest whose wife dies? He cannot remarry in Orthodoxy and be a priest. So, it’s part of him being married or being a priest. He has a hard choice to make. But I think the main thing is that people equate celibate priests with abuse. Abuse is not about sex. It is about power and control. It is through the vehicle of sex. It makes it confusing for the victim.
Jacobsen: It goes back to the question about unquestioned power in that particular structure. If they have that transcendental status connecting to something divine, it is much harder to question it, especially if you have grown up or been imbued in it. It is much harder to question it.
Sakoda: A lot of the priests tell convincing lies. This is what God wants you to do. Sometimes, for girls, they’ll say, “God wants me to indoctrinate you to what it means to be a Christian wife,” or something. It is one of those things where you must be in the situation. You have to be the child and realize everything that has happened before or the other tactic. It was Phil Saviano. He did the expose on the Catholic Church. He said, ‘The priest gave me a beer and gave me porn.’
Jacobsen: Ha!
Sakoda: ‘The next time, he wanted me to go further. I couldn’t say, ‘No,’ because I was compromised with the beer and the porn.’ That is the way children’s minds work.
Jacobsen: Yes, in some of these stories, the people regress. The way they talk. They cannot just tell this priest to “fuck off,” to put it colloquially.
Sakoda: I had one man come to my meetings. I do not know if he came more than once. I have support meetings for survivors. He said, “I am not sure I should be there,” because he was there when the priest tried to touch him. He punched him and ran away.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: He goes, “I wasn’t abused,” but what happened was his trust in the institution died, whether the priest actually touched him or just tried to touch him, and he got punched. I try to tell people all the time. Even if you get away, many people freeze. Even if you froze or punched him, you would still feel that damage. “Oh my God, he is supposed to be a priest.” Particularly children, what do you do to protect yourself the next time? “It must be something I did. What do I do to change this situation?” You’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person. There’s probably nothing you can do, particularly for little kids. A grown man and a 6-year-old, that’s not even a fair fight.
Jacobsen: 18, 20, 25, they still have a lot of the development of having a feeling and standing in it. It can be much if you push them hard enough. It doesn’t take that much pushing. It takes a long time to get a backbone.
Sakoda: Especially to stand up to someone who you have been told is someone who represents God. I remember one survivor. He was abused as an adult. He was a seminarian. When the priest attacked him, he froze. He was shocked that a priest would be doing this. Afterwards, he had such self-blame and loathing because “Why didn’t I do something?” I think that’s hard. It is not just fight or flight. It is also fighting, fighting, freezing, freezing and complying. People tend to forget about that. That happens. It can set a pattern. That freeze and compliance can haunt you in similar situations for the rest of your life. You may revert to that response instead of doing something different. I think trauma is stored in a different part of the brain. It affects your behaviour in ways that you do not always realize. Someone told me. When their abuser had told them that if they spoke up, they would be killed, and when they spoke up, they were so terrified. The idea that the axe was coming. Even though their abuser was dead, it was terrifying to come forward because of what they had been told.
Jacobsen: The tools of religious indoctrination, from my view, are based on fear. A lot of it is reinforced by fear of death. “I would rather not think about the idea that I would stop existing and, therefore, I will exist eternally in some other transcendent dimension.”
Sakoda: So, “I have to do x, y, and z.” It is like the toll houses. “I have to do everything my spiritual father tells me, or I will be eternally damned.”
Jacobsen: The easiest presentation, I think it goes against… the philosophy on life is you’re a flame. Once you snuff the flame out, it doesn’t go anywhere. It just stops being. I think it is the same for us.
Sakoda: No one knows because no one has returned [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Right, people who believe in Uri Geller, who was shown as a fraud by James Randi on national television on Johnny Carson. Similar fakes and frauds, and so on, I am noticing the same phenomenon that you’re describing with individuals who come forward with the abuse. They have public cases. They have data up to 2020. They have news organizations cataloguing stuff like Hermina and Katherine. People, like the X Files, they want to believe.
Sakoda: They do. Part of it is that you want to go on with something bigger than yourself. That’s okay. What you cannot have is that my father ruined me. He said, “Melanie, you have a head to do more than decorate your shoulders.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: He focused on thinking for himself and didn’t tell people what to do. I think there is that element of social conditioning. Where you are supposed to obey the teachers. You are supposed to obey the priests. It is basically, people don’t say, “What if the priest is a creep?” What do I do them? Sex abuse is pervasive in society. I think it would find it in the Church. I think they could do a lot more to make churches a safer place if people are going to go to them.
Jacobsen: It is probably a hard pill to swallow because it makes churches seem like every other institution, which is to say, human. There’s also the fact that the indoctrination starts so early. I agree with Hypatia. If you imbue someone sufficiently early, it is extremely hard for them to unravel not the moral stuff, the superstitions that are built up around this complex of theology and social life, community, and ritual, and the unquestionable authority of these priests and bishop figures.
Sakoda: Yet, some overcome it. I know the woman who runs Bishop Accountability, Ann Barrett Doyle. She was one of those that was raised Catholic. I remember reading something about her. That was when she was 14. Their priest was saying something. She thought it was ridiculous and stood up. So, as my father said, you have people who believe in using your head or your conscience and speaking up when you see something wrong. Being comfortable and having someone telling you what to do is more tempting. It is not your responsibility.
Jacobsen: That’s scary for some people.
Sakoda: It is scary the other way too.
Jacobsen: Sure.
Sakoda: So, if the elder asks you to kill someone, you say, “Yes, sure thing.”
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Sakoda: Then you go and do it. But you will go to Heaven because you obeyed your spiritual father. That, to me, is scary. I think it is a perversion of what religion is all about.
Jacobsen: Since you have given me so much of your precious time, m’lady.
Sakoda: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: I am going to ask one last question.
Sakoda: Is it a trick question? [Laughing]
Jacobsen: I am hoping not. If you could point people to individuals or resources they can go to for help if they’re coming out of the Orthodox tradition, who should they look into? What organizations can they get some help from? Also, for yourself or others doing this kind of work, here is my experience so far. It is – literally – women doing this work. How can they support them with their time, skills, volunteer efforts, and finances? What are the ways to help as well?
Sakoda: Regarding organizations such as SNAP, we have support groups for survivors. They follow the AA meeting model. Most people find them either as a supplement to therapy or some people use them instead of therapy. It is a way of meeting other survivors or going to a room where you say, “This happened to me when I was 6.” Instead of people turning the other way or saying, “You need to forgive and forget,” or whatever. People will say, “We understand.”
Jacobsen: #ChurchToo.
Sakoda: Yes. There is also, in this country, a group called RAINN, Rape Abuse Incest National Network. They have some of the same services that they offer. However, they do not specialize in religion or religious abuse. SNAP is the only one I know that does it. That has a mission to support survivors of abuse and religious institutions. Maybe this is not quite what you meant by this. I think what people can do to help support. If someone comes and confides in you, when I was 10, my priest raped me, or my pastor raped me or whatever.
Jacobsen: The severity, just hearing it, is a very… If you hear that sentence, pause and hear what they’re saying to you; they’re not lying to you, most likely.
Sakoda: What do they have to gain?
Jacobsen: Seriously.
Sakoda: What do you say? You say, “I am sorry. I am sorry that happened to you. What can I do to support you?” Maybe you cannot do a whole lot. Maybe this is their healing journey. If you accept what they say… I had one Orthodox survivor who was abused. When I started talking to him, it was automatic, “I am so sorry that happened to you.” He started crying. What can I say? I make men cry. He said, “No one has ever told me that before. That they were sorry for what happened to me.” It is like, that’s sad.
Jacobsen: That breaks the spell. I am stealing from a now-deceased philosopher, Daniel Dennett, who wrote a book called Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. What you do when you do that, socially, at least, for me, you break the spell. You break the spell for men by doing so.
Sakoda: Yes, that helps; as to what can help the advocates, if they’re involved with an organization, you can support it. As I said, we never get the support to take status as a non-profit. Maybe it will happen. I am not going to hold my breath. The Catholic Church, you’d think Orthodox people would think about SNAP. “That’s for Catholics.” It was funny. I sent one woman. She had been abused as an older teen. I think she was 19, and it was by an Orthodox priest. I said, “Why not try one meeting? What is it going to hurt?” She said, “Oh my God, they didn’t have a regular meeting.” This one had a play being performed at a community theatre or something. The group went to see and support him. She goes, “Oh my God, he was a man. I was a woman. He was Catholic. I was Orthodox. He was telling my story.”
I think that is what you find in the community. If you find another organization that does that, support them! Because it is to make people come forward earlier and earlier. If we have children coming forward, then they will have criminal convictions. Chances are: If it gets publicized by the police if others know, you will get the convictions and some of these people behind bars rather than behind the pulpit. The more you do that, the more people will be willing to believe it, too. There will still be a few religious zealots who never believe this whole thing about “He had hands laid on him!” There is some change in Catholicism, starting with an O that happens when you are ordained. The best response I ever gave someone, particularly the Orthodox Church, was, “The Church may be mystical. It is not magic. If someone is an abuser before they are ordained, they are going to be an abuser afterwards. It is not going to fix them automatically.”
Melanie Sakoda o nedoličnom ponašanju pravoslavnog svećenstva
Melanie Sakoda važna je osoba u katalogiziranju zločina pravoslavne crkve. Što se događa u pravoslavlju?
Melanie Sakoda je direktorica podrške preživjelima Mreže preživjelih zlostavljanih od strane svećenika (SNAP), voditeljica SNAP-a East Bay i pravoslavna voditeljica SNAP-a. Ovdje dugo govorimo o pravoslavlju i zlostavljanju od strane svećenstva.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Danas smo ovdje s Melanie Sakoda. Ona je dugogodišnja – neki vole izraz aktivistica, neki kao netko tko radi za moralno ispravnu svrhu. Imali ste puno više vremena za osvrt na rad na ovoj temi. Moje prvo pitanje: Kako ste se prvobitno uključili u ovaj posao? Jer vi to radite desetljećima.
Melanie Sakoda: Imali smo incident u našoj crkvi u San Franciscu gdje je bio laik koji je bio zlostavljač djece s višestrukim osudama. Puštali su mu slobodu u našoj župi. Mnogo je djece ozlijeđeno, koliko znamo. To je počelo. Reakcija kada su se obitelji javile bila je takva reakcija. Pomislili smo: “O moj Bože, žalimo se na nekoga tko je bio pravoslavac samo dva tjedna prije posljednjeg uhićenja. Što ako se pokušavate žaliti na svećenika?” Dakle, odlučili smo da želimo pokrenuti web stranicu gdje bi ljudi imali neko mjesto na koje bi željeli doći, a ljudi bi mogli imati naklonost. Počeli smo u lipnju 1999. Skinuli smo ga u ožujku 2020.
Jacobsen: Otprilike 21 godinu internet je 1999. bio otprilike prevelik.
Sakoda: Ne.
Jacobsen: Ili je bio manji nego što je bio 2020. Kakva je bila reakcija 2020. u odnosu na 1999.? Koji je bio razlog skidanja?
Sakoda: Cappy (Larson), jedna od njezinih kćeri, napravila je izvorno kodiranje na izvornom mjestu. Zatim je odstupila. Bili smo Cappy i ja. Sada smo oboje u 70-ima. Čekali smo da vidimo nekoga kako će istupiti da nas preuzme.
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Cappy kaže, “Možda bismo trebali dopustiti da im nedostajemo.” [smijeh]
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Dakle, to je ono što smo učinili. Budući da uz održavanje web stranice postoje troškovi, sve smo troškove plaćali sami jer nam je trebala veća financijska potpora. Imali smo poštanski pretinac. Imali smo govornu poštu. Plaćali smo glavnu domenu, a zatim sigurnost. Kad god ljudi ne dobiju znak upozorenja kada posjete vašu stranicu, to je prilično skupo za ljude s fiksnim primanjima. Bilo je smiješno. Nekim su ljudima trebale godine da primjete da nas nema. Imam Facebook stranicu, barem u pravoslavnim crkvama. Imam ljude koji pišu s pitanjem: “Što se dogodilo s pokrov.org?”
Jacobsen: Ovo je uobičajeno. Smatram da je to uobičajeno kroz godine i godine obavljanja intervjua s ljudima koji su napustili vjerske grupe ili koji su još uvijek u njima, a imaju zabrinutosti i žele vidjeti da stvari postaju bolje, pravednije. Šačica je ljudi koji se bave određenim dijelovima aktivizma tijekom određenog vremena. Ti i Cappy ste primjeri toga. Dakle, i ti ljudi su izloženi raznim oblicima napada ili čak zlostavljanja. Dakle, s kojim vrstama ste se susreli? Koji su bili duhovitiji jer morate razviti smisao za humor u ovoj industriji? Koje su mogle biti duhovitije?
Sakoda: Najneduhovitiji je bila Cappyjeva kći, Greta, koja je još radila s nama. Namjeravali smo prisustvovati konferenciji u Dallasu pod nazivom Ortodoksni laici. Prvotno je Greta išla sama, a onda je primila prijetnje smrću od jednog svećenika čija je obitelj bila jako nezadovoljna što je on stavljen na našu stranicu. Na kraju sam otišao s njom. To je vjerojatno bilo najstrašnije. Jedna od najsmješnijih stvari… sjećate li se kada je ta djevojka nestala u Arubi prije mnogo godina?
Jacobsen: Nekoliko ljudi je možda nestalo, uključujući Arubu.
Šakoda: Bio je to veliki slučaj. Bila je mlada, studentica, plavooka plavokosa djevojka koja je nestala. Nekada smo objavljivali na pravoslavnim oglasnim pločama.
Jacobsen: Natalee Ann Holloway?
Sakoda: Da. Ovaj svećenik stavlja na jednu od ovih oglasnih ploča. Možda ga imam u svom smeću. “Cappy, i ti bi trebao biti Aruba’d.” Koliko neprikladno za osobu?
Jacobsen: Zvuči kao da si magarac.
Sakoda: Ali što je smiješno, kako su godine prolazile, reakcija je isprva bila vrlo, vrlo neprijateljska. Kako su godine prolazile, postajalo je sve manje neprijateljski. Ljudi bi nam slali stvari jer su znali da ćemo nešto učiniti s tim ili pokušati učiniti nešto s tim.
Jacobsen: Vi ste u sigurnoj zoni.
Sakoda: Bilo je to zanimljivo iskustvo. ne kajem se. Želim dobiti na lutriji, izgraditi stranicu i zaposliti ljude da rade na njoj. Vidjet ćemo što će se dogoditi. Govorim ljudima na svojoj Facebook stranici. Još uvijek imam pristup većini informacija. Mogao bih dobiti informacije ako žele informacije o nekome koga su vidjeli na stranici. Uz moj pristup staroj web stranici, nažalost imam previše tiskanih datoteka jer, naravno, kad sam išao na pravni fakultet. Sve je bilo papirnato. Imao sam tendenciju držati stvari na papiru, a ne na računalu. Imam računalne datoteke.
Jacobsen: Iznenađen sam što niste imali ništa na mikrofišu.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Da, znam, mikrofiš.
Sakoda: Baš sam htio reći. Prilično je pristojno. Imam stvari na papiru. Kad smo suprug i ja smanjili broj zaposlenih 2018., imali smo ogroman ured sa svim tim policama za knjige. Ovo više nemam. Imam puno datoteka u kutijama [Smijeh].
Jacobsen: Da [smije se].
Sakoda: Nedavno me netko pitao za ovu jednu grupu. Kunem se da imam još nešto. Ne mogu pronaći tiskanu datoteku.
Jacobsen: Pretraživanje po ključnim riječima na tiskanoj datoteci je teško. Koje aspekte pravde ste dosegli za ljude koji su vam se proširili? Je li bilo ičega na tom planu pomoći ili je to bio siguran prostor gdje ljudi mogu sigurno dobiti informacije i to je bilo pozitivno za njih?
Sakoda: Kad smo počeli, kao što ste spomenuli, 1999. bili su rani dani interneta. Cappy bi zvao ljude.
Jacobsen: Ovo je s domaće linije. Nema mobitela.
Sakoda: Mogli su biti mobiteli. Kada su počeli?
Ne sviđaju vam se oglasi? Postanite podržavatelj i uživajte u The Good Men Projectu bez oglasa
Jacobsen: Ne znam ni ja. Oh! Prvi je došao 1983. Dakle, možda je imala mobitel.
Sakoda: Sigurna sam da je bilo s njenog fiksnog telefona.
Jacobsen: Kao rotirajući telefon ili tako nešto.
Sakoda: U župi je bio jedan zlostavljač. On je bio dio ove grupe koja je došla u pravoslavlje. Izvorno su bili New Age kult iz San Francisca pod nazivom The Holy Order of Man. Nakon Jonestowna, nisu voljeli biti na kultnim listama. Pa su počeli tražiti drugo mjesto za slijetanje. Mnogi od njih počeli su pristupati pravoslavnim crkvama. Preko jedne od drugih Cappyjevih kćeri, pronašli smo nekog tipa koji je bio iz Svetog Reda Čovjeka, koji je rekao da je pravoslavac kod kojeg su išli bio dio ove kultne skupine i da je bio grčki pravoslavac. Bio je uznemiren kad su otišli s tim mitropolitom Pangratiosom Vrionisom iz nadbiskupije Vasiloupolisa. Zato što je rekao: “On je zlostavljač. On je osuđen.” Našli smo ovu sitnicu na nekom pravoslavnom forumu na internetu. Potrebna vam je pomoć da potražite ove informacije na internetu. Sve naše informacije bile su iz Pennsylvanije i razlikovale su se od okruga ili bilo čega. Dakle, Cappy je počeo zvati svaki okrug i tražiti. “Imate li kazneni dosje za ovu cifru?” Koliko teško može biti? Pangratios Vrionis, to nije ime…
Jacobsen: …vrlo rijetko, čak i za Grke!
Sakoda: Napokon ga je našla. Službenik u zgradi suda bio je vrlo suosjećajan. Ne bih ti ovo trebao reći. Ne samo da nam je poslala zapise bez da nam je naplatila, nego je otišla – i poput mene – pogledala u arhive. Imala je stvari u kutijama. Pronašla je još nekoliko stranica. Sve nam ih je poslala besplatno. To je bio jedan od prvih slučajeva koje smo objavili na našoj web stranici, a to je bio Pangratios Vrionis. Nakon što je izašlo u javnost da je imao takvo uvjerenje, još uvijek je djelovao kao biskup u Queensu, New York.
Jacobsen: To je, vjerojatno, velika biskupija.
Sakoda: Da. Javile su se novije žrtve.
Jacobsen: Naravno.
Šakoda: Drugi put je osuđen. To je bio naš prvi pothvat u tome. Izvorno smo radili puno toga. Cappy telefonira i razgovara sa službenicima u raznim županijama diljem zemlje. Ali kako je vrijeme prolazilo, kao što sam rekao, ljudi bi nam počeli slati stvari. Rekli bi: “Taj i taj je osuđen; ovdje je poveznica na članak.” Možda, jer je to pokupio i internet. Postoje neke županije u kojima možete potražiti evidenciju na internetu, ali ne onoliko koliko bih ja želio. Postalo je lakše pronaći informacije.
Jacobsen: Želim pretražiti ovu jednu stvar za ovo pitanje. Nacionalni centar za informacije o seksualnom nasilju (NSVRC), “ Jedna od pet žena i jedan od 71 muškarca bit će silovani u nekom trenutku svog života… U osam od 10 slučajeva silovanja, žrtva je poznavala osobu koja ju je seksualno napastovala. ” Dakle, to su brojke koje označavaju ekstremne oblike seksualnog nasilja. Obje ih doživljavaju prirodno, iako ih žene često doživljavaju od muškaraca i muškaraca koje poznaju. Dakle, ako su to stope u SAD-u, kakve su stope u Crkvi? Jesu li isti ili su viši? Ako su viši, koja je svrha Crkve kao moralne važnosti za živote tih ljudi?
Ne sviđaju vam se oglasi? Postanite podržavatelj i uživajte u The Good Men Projectu bez oglasa
Sakoda: Problem je u tome što, kao što sam spomenuo kad smo ranije razgovarali, nema prave pouzdane statistike zlostavljanja u pravoslavnim crkvama. Od 2002. Katolička crkva objavljuje popise zlostavljača po biskupiji. Postoji izvješće Johna Jaya. Ne postoji, koliko mi je poznato, niti jedna pravoslavna jurisdikcija u ovoj zemlji koja objavljuje podatke o svojim zlostavljačima. Najbliže što smo došli bila je Grčka pravoslavna nadbiskupija jedno vrijeme.
Vidjet ćete da je svećenik uklonjen, ali ne znate zašto. Je li odlučio da više ne želi biti svećenik? Je li pronevjeravao? Ili je seksualno zlostavljao nekoga u svojoj župi, bilo muškarca, ženu ili dijete? Oni to ne objavljuju. Na vrlo kratko vrijeme , Grci su se zamrznuli ili suspendirali. Ako je netko razriješen dužnosti ili suspendiran, to bi moglo imati veze s nagodbom u grčkom slučaju. Taj netko bio je jedan od njihovih nenovčanih zahtjeva. Trajalo je samo kratko vrijeme. ti ne znaš Možete ga pratiti. Još jedna stvar vezana za pravoslavne predmete je da katolici imaju službeni katolički imenik. Izlazi svake godine. To je golema knjiga. Navodi sve svećenike u SAD-u i njihove zadatke. Pravoslavci nemaju tu vrstu resursa za praćenje ljudi. Dakle, da ste vidjeli film u središtu pozornosti, sjetili biste se., Oni traže praznine.
Ljudi su često na ‘odsustvu’ ili ‘liječenju’. Mi taj resurs nemamo. Imam mnogo imenika. Sada je vjerojatnije da su na mreži. Upravo sam preuzeo kopiju i stavio je na svoje preopterećeno računalo. Doista je teško pronaći podatke o pravoslavnim slučajevima. Oni su ispod radara. Jeste li upoznati s pitanjem kalendara? Neke od pravoslavnih crkava koriste drugačiji kalendar od drugih. Što je to, Papa, Papa Grgur uveo je kalendar kako bi počeo dodavati prijestupne godine jer su shvatili.
Jacobsen: Oh! Ukrao je to od Dioniza Exiguusa. Svjestan sam toga.
Sakoda: Dobro, neke pravoslavne crkve će slaviti Božić 7. siječnja. Nalaze se na onome što je poznato kao Julijanski kalendar, ali to je modificirani Julijanski kalendar jer uključuje prijestupnu godinu. Dakle, vjerovali ili ne, ovo je veliki problem u pravoslavlju, posebno u ovoj zemlji. Kad imate zlostavljače, “Odlučio sam da kalendar nije tamo gdje jest. Zaključio sam da je novi kalendar razlog svih problema u pravoslavlju. Zlostavljači su to koristili kao ispriku zašto su prelazili iz jedne Crkve u drugu.
Jacobsen: Kalendar.
Sakoda: Da. Postoji taj vic. “Koliko se pravoslavaca mijenja na žarulju?”
Jacobsen: Koliko?
Sakoda: “Što? Promijeniti? Ne.”
Jacobsen: Tako je. Zato se muškarci ne briju. Na pitanje zašto muškarci puštaju tako duge brade, sjećam se smiješnog odgovora. On odgovara: “Više bi me zanimalo obrnuto. Zašto su se muškarci počeli brijati?” Ja ću im dati taj.
Sakoda: Smiješno je. Neki od ultrakonzervativizma u pravoslavlju nisu novi. Sjećam se svoje bake; Ne mogu se sjetiti je li se radilo o nošenju šala u crkvi ili o nošenju odijela s hlačama u crkvu. Moja baka je odgovorila: “Naravno, u crkvi nosim odijelo s hlačama. Što misliš, što je ovo, stari kraj?” [Smijeh] Moji djed i baka bili su imigranti, kao i moja majka. Došli su iz drugog svijeta. Neke od ovih stvari, ne znam jeste li naišli na druge smiješne stvari. To se zove naplatna kuća. Jeste li čuli za naplatne kuće?
Jacobsen: Ne.
Sakoda: Nemaju veze s kolačićima. Teorija je da kad umreš. Krist vam ne sudi. Prolazite kroz ovaj niz naplatnih kuća. Gdje vam đavo sudi, postalo je popularno u konzervativnijim krugovima. Otac Serafim Rose bio je u toj teologiji. Problem je što se koristi. Najbolje bi bilo da imaš duhovnog oca. Morate učiniti ono što vam vaš duhovni otac kaže da biste prošli kroz naplatne kuće. Imao sam jednog čovjeka koji mi je rekao. “U redu, ako ti tvoj duhovnik kaže da ubiješ nekoga, bi li?” Rekao je: “Da.”
Jacobsen: Čekaj. Duhovnik ima veći autoritet od Dekaloga.
Sakoda: Da, osim svega, tvoja savjest, Biblija.
Jacobsen: To je pomalo problematično.
Sakoda: Vrlo je problematično. Neke od tih grupa su se gomilale. Imali su skladišta oružja.
Jacobsen: Kao AK47 i granate?
Sakoda: Da.
Jacobsen: Što?
Sakoda: Zato što se spremaju na kraj dana.
Jacobsen: Naravno, trebate municiju i oružje za demone. Vjerojatno su previše gledali Constantinea ili tako nešto.
Sakoda: Za mene je to bio drugi svijet. Ono što sam počeo reći, pričao sam o tome očevoj najmlađoj sestri. Cijeli život je pravoslavna. Ona kaže: “Nikad nisam čula za naplatne kuće.” [Smijeh] Jer ljudi nisu dobro upućeni u svoju religiju. Netko dolazi s ovom snježnobijelom bradom i predstavlja se kao starješina.
Jacobsen: Izgleda kao Jehova u ilustriranoj Bibliji ili tako nešto.
Sakoda: Jedan čovjek mi je jednom rekao da je bio negdje u Grčkoj. Upoznao je ovu ženu. Imali su kratku vezu. Sljedećeg dana, otišao je do ovog starješine. Starješina mu je točno ispričao što je učinio prethodne noći. Dakle, to mora značiti da je stariji bio vidovit. rekao sam mu. “Ili da je starješina poslao ženu k vama, što je vjerojatno vjerojatnije.” Ideja je da vam starješina kaže da upoznate tog čovjeka i spavate s njim. Ti to učini. Inače nećete proći kroz naplatne kućice.
Jacobsen: To je neupitni autoritet. Bit će drugačije po zajednici. Ali taj temelj neupitnog autoriteta je temeljni problem.
Sakoda: Bio sam iznenađen. Novac za te samostane navodno je dolazio od ruske mafije.
Jacobsen: Ha!
Šakoda: Imam mnogo informacija o tim optužbama i zašto su oni mislili da jesu. Ideja je, pogotovo sada, s Putinom i invazijom na Ukrajinu. To je ruski novac. Navodno postoje samostani s oružjem. Nemam nikakva saznanja iz prve ruke o tome jer ne bih nogom kročio u te samostane (smijeh). Morate nositi stolnjak na glavi ako ste žena.
Jacobsen: Stvar s oružjem u crkvama je, ironično, američka.
Sakoda: Da [smije se].
Jacobsen: Stolnjak na glavi, to je više – ne znam – fundamentalistički islam ili rubne kršćanske skupine u Sjedinjenim Državama.
Sakoda: To postaje sve više i više unutar pravoslavlja. Kao što vidite sve više i više obraćenika koji pristupaju pravoslavlju, oni su benigno dovedeni od strane ovih grupa. Moje su tete cijelo vrijeme provodile u Crkvi. “Ne znaju o čemu govore.” Šeširi, možda, i pokrivala za glavu nisu bili obavezni kad sam odrastao. Moram priznati. U 50-ima smo nosili šešire kad smo išli u crkvu. Ne u smislu da morate pokriti kosu ili nešto slično. Vidite djevojčice koje moraju imati suknje do gležnja s ovim velikim pokrivalima za glavu. Po meni, tu nešto nije u redu. Kao jedna žena s kojom sam radio, bila je svećenikova žena. Doktorirala je radeći na području seksualnog zlostavljanja svećenika. Ona kaže: “Kad počnete razmišljati o tome, što to govori ljudima? Djeca su seksualni objekti.” Mislila je da je to uvredljivo. Na nekim mjestima kupaće kostime možete nabaviti od menonita ili bilo čega drugog [smijeh].
Jacobsen: Vjerojatno bolji od Mormona; imaju donje rublje koje pokriva cijelo tijelo za koje misle da te može zaštititi od metaka. Ako radi, to je sjajno, ali nazovite me skeptičnim!
Sakoda: Sva bi ih djeca trebala imati (smijeh).
Jacobsen: Pogotovo ako idete u rusku pravoslavnu crkvu [smijeh] ili američku crkvu.
Sakoda: Pravoslavlje se promijenilo od mog djetinjstva. Nije se promijenilo na bolje.
Jacobsen: Je li se ključno pitanje zlostavljanja značajno promijenilo osim činjenice da izlazi sve više na vidjelo?
Šakoda: Mislim da se nije promijenilo. Mislim da je bilo tužno kad smo prvi put počeli razgovarati o tome što se dogodilo u našoj Crkvi i počeli razgovarati sa svećenicima kojima sam vjerovao/divio se; svi su govorili: “Zlostavljanje je nepoznato u pravoslavnoj crkvi.”
Jacobsen: Ha! Da, vidio sam neke nejasne komentare nekih pravoslavnih svećenika o tome, gdje su više-manje govorili: “Gledajte, to se uopće ili ne događa u našoj Crkvi. Bez obzira na to, mi nismo katolici, a pogledajte ih.” To je argument. To je podmukao i odvratan argument ako je to vaš standard.
Šakoda: Uzeo sam papir. Pravoslavna crkva Amerike je imala svoju godišnju ili dvogodišnju konferenciju. Nisam se registrirao. otišao sam. Izdao sam svoje knjige. Dok su ljudi ulazili na konferenciju, dijelio sam svoju subverzivnu literaturu.
Jacobsen: Izvrsno, tako treba, dobar posao, cijenimo vas.
Sakoda: Smiješno je to što je ovo, opet, bila jedna od onih stvari zbog kojih se činilo da Cappy traži osudu za Pangratiosa. Boja koju sam odabrao za svoje male knjižice bila je ista kao i liturgija za konferenciju [Smijeh].
Jacobsen: Lijepo.
Sakoda: Ljudi su ih grabili, misleći da su liturgijske knjige.
Jacobsen: Ne!
Šakoda: Otvarali su ih.
Jacobsen: Iznenađenje.
Sakoda: Iznenađenje! Ne sjećam se jesam li saznao kako ga je dobio. Dobio sam ovu čestitku od ovog čovjeka koji govori o tome da mu je kćer zlostavljao pravoslavni svećenik. Bilo je to negdje u okolici Chicaga. O tome je govorio neistinu. To, da, događa se. Ne govore o tome. Ili to prikrivaju. Bio je slučaj iz 1800-ih koji je bio u novinama o pravoslavnom svećeniku koji je nekoga zlostavljao.
Jacobsen: Možete li mi to poslati?
Sakoda: Mogao bih kad bih mogao pronaći, Scott (smijeh).
Jacobsen: To nije mali projekt. Ovakve stvari. Treba vremena.
Šakoda: Imam ormar pun papira četiri velike kutije. Kao što sam rekao, imam sklonost čuvanju stvari, ne skeniranju i stavljanju na svoje računalo. Ali to je bio problem. Ako ne govorite o problemu, ne možete ga riješiti. To je moj problem. Ako želite da ljudi ostanu u Crkvi, morate služiti povrijeđenima – izravnim žrtvama i članovima njihovih obitelji. Mnogi članovi obitelji odlaze i nakon ovakvog incidenta.
Jacobsen: Ili se obrate ili prestanu vjerovati.
Sakoda: Ako je Crkva luk spasenja, onda biste trebali uključiti sve. Pomoglo bi kad ne biste odbili ljude koji su bili ozlijeđeni. Veliki je šok kad pomisle: “Mi smo oštećena strana. Stigli smo do Crkve. Očekujemo da ćemo biti zagrljeni. ‘Jako mi je žao. Što možemo učiniti za vas?’” To se ne događa. Ne sjećam se da je žrtva to rekla. Mogli bi biti oni koji to rade, nemojte me kontaktirati. To se ne događa. Dio toga može biti potreba za dodatnim obrazovanjem. Što radite kada netko dođe i to vam kaže? Kakav bi trebao biti odgovor?
Jacobsen: Neke od najnovijih kanadskih oružanih snaga. U podacima za 2022. objavljenim 5. prosinca 2023. većina pripadnika Kanadskih oružanih snaga ne misli da je to nešto što oni rade; to je stil života s ugovorom koji potpisuju. Više od polovice pripadnika kanadskih oružanih snaga time se bavi ili neformalno – to je druga kategorija, a oni koji podnesu izvješće smatraju da će se nešto učiniti ili da će se učiniti više. Dakle, pomoglo bi da imate te priče. Dakle, čak i samoizabrane skupine koje izvještavaju o tome su skupine koje se više nadaju; drugi skupovi to ne prijavljuju: Nose se time sami ili među svojom obitelji. Oni odlaze. Neki to pokušavaju pomiriti sa svojom vjerom, Bogom ili religijom. Pretpostavljam da je to vrlo teško provući liniju.
Sakoda: Da, jer, mislim, jedna od nesretnih stvari, obično, kada idete u crkvu ili kršćansku crkvu, “trebate oprostiti i zaboraviti.”
Jacobsen: To je otrovno.
Sakoda: Nije to kako se zlostavljanje manifestira u životima ljudi. Mogli biste razmišljati: “Izbacio sam iz glave svog zlostavljača.” Možda dijete napuni vaše godine kada ste bili zlostavljani; onda ga vraća natrag. Za preživjele, to je više tobogan gore-dolje. Što u tom slučaju znači oprostiti? Moja najbolja definicija je da ne razmišljate o ovome, da ne zadržavate sav ovaj bijes i tjeskobu. Nastavljate sa svojim životom.
Jacobsen: Točno, integrirano je.
Sakoda: Što ti je bilo, to je bilo; neće se promijeniti.
Jacobsen: Taj dio se ne može promijeniti i najteže ga je prihvatiti.
Sakoda: Da, imam puno pravoslavnih svećenika koji su mi govorili ružne stvari. Jedan me optužio da ako to kažeš ljudima, to će ih oštetiti. Rekao sam: “Ne, ako imate dijete koje doživi prometnu nesreću i izgubi nogu, može li to dijete nastaviti i imati sretan život? Naravno. Hoće li ikada dobiti drugu nogu? Ne.” Seksualno zlostavljanje je ista stvar. To je trajna ozljeda. Dakle, ono što želite je da lijepo zacijeli s ožiljkom, a ne da bude stalni apsces.
Jacobsen: Što su vam još rekli?
Sakoda: Naš omiljeni, ovo je još jedan smiješan.
Jacobsen: Ovo je smisao rada za one koji ovo čitaju. Dugoročno ćete uspjeti samo ako imate smisla za humor.
Sakoda: Ne, smiješ se stvarima koje nisu smiješne, ali se stalno smiješ stvarima. Što je alternativa – stalno biti ljut i plakati? Svećenik je rekao da smo Cappy i ja očite lezbijke.
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Nazvao sam Cappyja i pitao: “Jesi li vidio ovo? Trebamo li reći našim muževima?” [smijeh]
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Šakoda: Ove godine sam u braku 49 godina. Duže je u braku. To je kao, “Bože, trebamo li reći Gregu i Robertu?” Bilo što ili smo bili ljuti.
Jacobsen: Da, mnogi ateisti to shvaćaju kada kritiziraju vjersku nepravdu. To je isto kao i govoriti u Crkvi.
Sakoda: Moj omiljeni odgovor je bio: “Zašto se ne ljutiš što su djeca trajno ozlijeđena u ime Boga?”
Jacobsen: Trebate li se ljutiti na mene?
Sakoda: Da, zar se ne treba ljutiti na mene? Ne morate bacati kamenje ili uzeti te mitraljeze.
Jacobsen: Prihvaćam ljutnju, ali ne nužno u njenim očiglednim oblicima vila, baklji, kamenja i pušaka. To je dugotrajno sagorijevanje pisanja pisama, kampanja, podnošenja izvješća, priopćenja za javnost, intervjuiranja i prikupljanja baza podataka.
Sakoda: Ako hoćeš da pogledaš, kako sam i ja nekome rekao, Krist je mjenjačima uzeo bičeve i istjerao ih iz hrama. Postoji presedan za nešto ljutnje. Zatim dobijete odgovor. “Što? Misliš li da si Krist?”
Jacobsen: Ne bi li on trebao biti primjer ovim ljudima?
Sakoda: To je primjer. Pokazuje vam da postoji vrijeme i mjesto. Moj stric, pravoslavni svećenik, bio je najmlađi brat mog oca. Ovo mi je došlo kroz zamršen proces u koji neću ulaziti. Jednom je rekao ženi koja se borila. Otišla je kod njega na ispovijed. Rođakinja je zlostavljala njezinu djecu. Rekla je: “Ne mogu im oprostiti ono što su učinili.” Moj ujak joj je rekao: “Krist nastavlja svoju službu i govori: ‘Grijesi su ti oprošteni. Tvoji grijesi su oprošteni. Tvoji su grijesi oprošteni.” Ona kaže, “Što je rekao na križu? ‘Oče, oprosti mi’” Rekao je, “Nemoj pokušavati biti bolji od Krista.” Iz bilo kojeg razloga, oslobodio je njezin teret. Rekla je da radi najbolje što može i da im ne mora oprostiti. Trebala bi reći: “Bože, to ovisi o tebi.” Za mnoge preživjele, osobito one koji se bore hoće li ostati dijelom Crkve ili ne, to je vrlo značajna misao. “Ne moram grliti svog zlostavljača.” Mogu oprati ruke od njih.
Jacobsen: Naši umovi rade samo na pamćenju važnih informacija. Trauma je vrlo bitna da osoba izbjegne tu situaciju ponovno. Zato je trauma i jako se pamti. Fraza koju ste rekli o oprostiti i zaboraviti ne odgovara našem kognitivnom sustavu, ali djeluje: Oprosti i ne zaboravi je ključ.
Sakoda: Nemoj oprostiti, ali svejedno živi sretan život.
Jacobsen: Na osobi je hoće li oprostiti. Nije do zajednice, svećenika ili bilo koga drugoga. Za neke ljude opraštanje nije pravi izbor.
Sakoda: Ako pogledate, kao što sam rekao, za ljude koji još uvijek pokušavaju biti unutar religije, ako je ideja da vam grijesi neće biti oprošteni, to je strah. “Kako da to učinim? Neka sam proklet jer ne mogu oprostiti.” Zato sam rekao ono što je moj ujak rekao ovoj ženi. To joj je pružalo veliku utjehu jer nije bio zahtjevan. Nije rekao: “Kako strašno, ideš u pakao ako svom rođaku ne oprostiš što je seksualno zlostavljao tvoju djecu.” Rekao je: “Neka Bog to sredi.” Idi i živi svoj život. Mislim da to ionako nije lako učiniti. Teže je učiniti ako ste još uvijek zarobljeni u ovoj ideji. “O moj Bože, proklet sam sam sebe ako ovo ne mogu.”
Jacobsen: Nakon 2020., kakve su novosti o ovakvim slučajevima za Pravoslavnu Crkvu? Radit ću na analizi materijala koje su mi dale Hermina i Katherine. To je kronologija iz godine u godinu onoga što su do sada napravili, sažimajući i udahnjujući novi život tim popularnim ili nepopularnim izvješćima.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Pokriva malo. Nema pravnu snagu. Potrebni su ljudi poput tebe, Hermine, Katherine, Lucy i drugih da bi se stvari dogodile. Ja sam ništa. Svi ljudi za koje znam da rade na ovome u vezi s pravoslavnom tradicijom su žene koje imaju otprilike 40 godina i više.
Sakoda: I gore i gore! [Smijeh].
Jacobsen: Točno, dakle, što je to sa ženama u tim zajednicama i time što su u drugoj polovici života, statistički gledano, što stavlja tu demografiju u poziciju da govori o tim temama tijekom dugog razdoblja i da uloži naporan rad da radi statističke analize, dobiva podatke, dobiva priče i predstavlja resurs za ljude?
Sakoda: Dio toga, religija je ionako uvijek bila više žensko područje. Kad imate zajednicu, pravoslavnu i katoličku, nemate sveštenice. Nemate više ni žena đakona. Mada, postoji oživljavanje toga u pravoslavnim crkvama. Dakle, to je stvar usmjerena na čovjeka.
Jacobsen: Istina.
Sakoda: Mislim da muškarci i žene malo drugačije reagiraju na traumu. Dio toga bi također mogao biti. Sjećam se MeToo pokreta, koji je započeo ili eksplodirao, i bilo je svih tih stvari o ženama koje objavljuju MeToo i govore o tome što rade da bi se zaštitile. Bio je jedan čovjek zbunjen. Objavio je: “Što radite da biste izbjegli seksualni napad?” On kaže: “Klonite se zatvora.”
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Žene su stalno izložene napadima ili nepoželjnim dodirima. Mislim da im daje simpatičniju perspektivu kada netko dođe i kaže: “Ovo mi se dogodilo.” Možda će vjerojatnije vjerovati da se to dogodilo vama jer se dogodilo njima. Mislim da ne biste mogli komunicirati s odraslom ženom koja nije bila napadnuta na bilo koji način. U vlaku ste ili autobusu i netko vas zgrabi za guzicu. Muškarci to ne doživljavaju tako često. Ne svi muškarci, ali možda je to varijabla.
Jacobsen: Doživio sam nešto od toga. Radio sam u nižerazrednom pubu.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Radio sam u stražnjem dijelu kuće, ponekad u prednjem dijelu. Radio sam u četiri restorana istovremeno i radio sam za dva od njih preko noći, sedam dana u tjednu. Sjećam se jednog barmena. Tražila bi od mene da posegnem za nečim i uhvatila bi se za trbuh, guzicu. To uznemiravanje nije traženo (smijeh). Mislim, iz onoga što čitam i što sam čula i što mi je rečeno, da to nije ni približno tako rašireno kao što je bilo za mnoge žene.
Sakoda: Mislim da mnogim muškarcima to ne pomaže, pogotovo ako ih je muškarac napao. Ideja je: “Zašto ga nisi odbio?” Dobiješ malo toga kao žena. Kao žena, često ćete dobiti, “Što si imala na sebi?”
Jacobsen: Isti ton iu pitanju. primjećujem. “Zašto ga nisi odbio?” je “Što si imao na sebi?” Što ste učinili da ovo prizovete na sebe?
Sakoda: Iskreno, ako sam dobrotvoran, samozaštita ljudi. Ako se može dogoditi tebi, može se dogoditi i meni. Stoga ste sigurno učinili nešto da to navučete na sebe. Inače se može dogoditi i meni.
Jacobsen: pitanje će pretpostaviti mušku snagu i samoobranu u pogledu agresije. Što se tiče žena, tu dobivam dva boda. S jedne strane, što nosiš? Moć mnogih žena u društvu povezana je s njihovom ljepotom. To je ono što je dodijeljeno. S druge strane, njihov odnos jedni prema drugima u smislu pričanja njihovih priča je relacijski. To je vidjeti tu priču u drugoj osobi.
Šakoda: Ono drugo, nešto što si rekao. Moj književni klub jednom je pročitao ovu knjigu Deborah Tannen, You Don’t Understand . Ona je lingvistica. Ona kaže da muškarci i žene govore različitim jezicima. Stavlja je na muškarce, izvorno lovce, i žene, sakupljačice. Dakle, ljudi, morali ste imati nekoga tko bi bio glavni. Morali ste imati hijerarhiju. Učinio si što ti je rečeno. Nisi pričao o tome. Rekao si, “Idi ti tamo. Ti idi tamo. To je ono što ćemo učiniti.” Žene bi provodile cijeli dan pričajući i skupljajući stvari. Dakle, žene razgovaraju kako bi stvorile međusobne odnose. Muškarci govore kako bi prenijeli informacije.
Jacobsen: Kao opća tendencija, kada se muškarci međusobno povezuju, zamislite ih kako sjede za kladom i govore paralelno, ne gledajući se. Žene, to je licem u lice.
Sakoda: Što kažete na to? [Smijeh] Sviđa mi se to. Sve smo pokušavale natjerati svoje muževe da pročitaju knjigu. Najgori je bio moj muž jer je bio zbunjen kad sam mu ispričala tu teoriju; on je pametan. Otišao je na Yale. On kaže: “Ne razumijem. Imamo odnos. Ti si moja žena.” Nije baš ono o čemu govorim u vezi s vezom. Čak i unutar SNAP-a, žene vođe razgovaraju jedna s drugom. Znamo što se jedno drugome događa u životima.
Jacobsen: “Kako si? Cindy se vratila s pogreba i jako joj je teško. Kathryn i njezina djeca su dobro. Jedan je upravo ušao u tešku poslovnu školu, a drugi je bolestan.” [Smijeh] Ove stvari.
Sakoda: To gradi odnose umjesto da netko glavni odlučuje, a tu je i redoslijed izbora. Žene mogu biti zlobne. Nemojte me krivo shvatiti, posebno tinejdžerice.
Jacobsen: Slažem se s Margaret Atwood. Ne mislim da su žene anđeli ili demoni.
Sakoda: Imaju drugačiji način međusobnog odnosa od muškaraca. To primjećujete u braku, odlascima u klub knjiga, jer niste na istoj valnoj duljini. Žene žele razgovarati o nečemu što će se dogoditi. Muškarci kažu: “Što želiš da učinim?”
Jacobsen: prenosi podatke za akciju umjesto izgradnje naracije za održavanje odnosa.
Sakoda: Da, to bi moglo učiniti žene suosjećajnijima za preživjele koji se javljaju. Pokušavaju se povezati s njima. Ne mislim da većina žena postane žena a da usput ne doživi neki seksualni napad.
Jacobsen: Možete li to ponoviti? To je vrlo moćna fraza.
Sakoda: Ne mislim da neke žene nisu bile seksualno zlostavljane, ako ćemo iskreno. Možda ne razmišljaju o tome. Netko te pipka u autobusu i okreće se i ne zna tko je to učinio. To je samo životna činjenica. Žene rade stvari. Moj muž je bio iznenađen. Rekao sam da većina žena parkira svoje automobile. Parkiraju ispod uličnog svjetla. Nose ključeve u rukama da nekome oči iskopaju. Kad navečer otvorim vrata auta, ako sam sam, prvo provjerim na stražnjem sjedalu.
Jacobsen: Ovaj posljednji bi mogao biti utjecaj Hollywooda.
Sakoda: To je nešto što ste pročitali. Ženski časopisi govore o svašta. Moj muž je rekao: “Gledaš li na stražnje sjedalo?” Rekao sam, “Da.” Moglo bi biti u poklopcu motora i iskočiti. [smijeh]
Jacobsen: [smijeh]
Sakoda: Ili ako, ponekad, žene čekaju lift i tip vam daje jezivu vibru, vi se pretvarate, “Zaboravio sam. Samo naprijed,” jer ne želiš vožnju s njim. Jedna od knjiga koju sam pročitao u proteklih nekoliko godina je Gavin de Becker. Zove se Dar straha . Imao je i drugu knjigu. Žene se uče da budu pristojnije. Moja kći se žali. Muškarci uvijek prekidaju žene.
Jacobsen: Istina. Ja to radim!
Sakoda: [Smije se] Ali oni čak i ne razmišljaju o tome, prekidaju. U svakom slučaju, žene koje bi trebale biti pristojne trebale bi to prihvatiti. Kad vas prekidaju, ne govorite ništa. Kažete: “Umiri se.” To je jedna od stvari. Možda je to razlog zašto su žene više izložene napadima jer pokušavaju biti pristojne. Oni ignoriraju. To je čekanje dizala, preplašiti se i ući u dizalo s njim jer ne želiš misliti da te preplašio [Smijeh]. Važno je. Ponekad, u crkvenim situacijama, ljudi ovo ignoriraju: mogli bi vidjeti svećenika ili učitelja kako grli dijete. Prožimat će njihov osjećaj pauka. Ali oni neće učiniti ništa po tom pitanju, osobito u crkvenim situacijama. “Imam tako prljav um da mislim da bi otac mogao imati nešto zlo na umu kad grli ovo dijete.” To je poput: “Ne, iz bilo kojeg razloga, imamo takve osjećaje. Moramo obratiti pozornost na njih.”
Jacobsen: Je li vjerojatno većina svećenika koji su zlostavljali do sada nikada nisu došli pred lice pravde? Oni koji su bili zlostavljani ostali su na vlasti ili su unaprijeđeni.
Sakoda: Da. Kao što rekoh, nemam tako dobar okvir za pravoslavne jer nema tako dobrog okvira. Ljudi su me znali pitati: “Kolika je stopa zlostavljanja u pravoslavnim crkvama?” Kako bih ja znao? Znam samo da ako pogledate imena na mojoj stranici, vjerojatno ih imam još deset koje ne mogu staviti na stranicu jer će mi netko napisati: Otac taj i taj me zlostavljao. Držim dosje o tome u slučaju da netko drugi naiđe niz cestu i dođe i tvrdi: “Otac taj i taj me je zlostavljao.” Sada sam zaboravio što ste pitali (smijeh).
Jacobsen: Većina onih koji su zlostavljali nisu došli pred lice pravde?
Sakoda: Nemam toliko informacija, ali znam u katoličkom kontekstu. Vrlo je mali broj svećenika procesuiran za svoje zločine. Dio toga je i problem zastare. Nakon dovoljno vremena nastupila je zastara. U SAD-u, Stognerova odluka, Kalifornija je pokušala učiniti ovo okolo, rekavši da neće promijeniti definicije zločina ili kazni. Ipak, dopustili bi pokretanje kaznenih predmeta nakon zastare. Vrhovni sud SAD-a rekao je: “Ne, ne možete to učiniti. To je kršenje ustavnih prava. Ne možete retroaktivno promijeniti kaznenu zastaru.” Ljudi se obično javljaju između 50 i 70. Šala je, nije lijepa, da zastara znači “Sranje od sreće”.
Jacobsen: Kako je to rekao George Carlin? “Ti bi bio SOL i JWF. Sranje od sreće i jako dobro sjeban.”
Sakoda: Dakle, postoji ta stvar. Ako shvatite da to rade crkve i pravoslavna crkva, ja nemam toliko podataka. Ne prijavljuju ih policiji. Zato i nemate toliko procesuiranja. Pokušavam razmišljati. Ovo je jedan od prvih velikih slučajeva. Mislim da je 1999. godine u jednom pravoslavnom samostanu u Texasu dvoje ljudi prijavljeno zbog seksualnog zlostavljanja djece. Abbott i njegova desna ruka, kako se zove? Otac Benedict Green, drugi tip je bio Jeremiah Hitt. Osim presude Pangratiosu koju smo otkrili, oni su bili prvi. Hitt je otišao na suđenje. Benedict je priznao krivnju. Ali još uvijek si imao sve te ljude koji nisu vjerovali u to.
Jacobsen: To nije kontroverzni dio. To je prilično za tečaj. Čak je i tip koji je vodio trgovinu ljudima, seks trgovinu i seks kult, Keith Raniere, bio dio HBO-ove specijalne ili dokumentarne serije, Zavjet , gdje je bio avangarda u NXIVM-u. Dobio je doživotni zatvor, kao i nekoliko njegovih sudionika, muškaraca i žena. Ipak, u zatvoru ga mnogi brane.
Šakoda: Da, u ovom konkretnom slučaju, 2006. godine, bio je drugi set optužbi. Nove žrtve dolaze naprijed višestruke žrtve. Ne mogu se sjetiti je li njih 5 ili 6 bilo optuženo i svi su osuđeni. Benedict Green se ubio prije nego što je mogao ići na suđenje jer mislim da je znao da će ići u zatvor. Uostalom, ovo mu je bila druga osuda. Ovo je bilo u Teksasu. Ne želiš ići u zatvor u Teksasu ili Floridi. [smijeh]
Jacobsen: Ne! Vrijeme je loše.
Sakoda: Nijedan zatvor nije istinski human, po mom mišljenju, nakon što sam posjetio razne zatvore u Kaliforniji. Posebno su loši. Na Floridi također možete ući u lančanu bandu. Znate li što je lančana banda?
Jacobsen: Ne.
Sakoda: Pustili su zatvore na rad na cesti. Koliko je star onaj film Paula Newmana o toj lančanoj bandi? Postoji glavna namirnica na jugu. Nećete ih naći u ostatku zemlje. Možda imaju programe. Kalifornija ima program u kojem vas mogu pustiti da se borite protiv požara.
Jacobsen: Iskreno, ne znam što je gore: besplatno gašenje požara ili biti u zatvoru.
Sakoda: Barem si vani. Mnogima je teško ne biti vani.
Jacobsen: To je kao jedan čovjek kojeg govorite o MeToo. Vjerojatno bi radije bio vani i gasio požare nego bio u zatvoru, jer bi se bojao da će biti seksualno napadnut.
Sakoda: Imao je vjerojatno 400 ili 500 funti. Ne bi ga trebali pustiti da gasi požare.
Jacobsen: Strukturno, potrebno je raditi.
Sakoda: Osim toga, on je u svom prvom kaznenom procesu došao na svoj prvi kazneni postupak s bocom za kisik. Ovo je uobičajena taktika za zlostavljače da se pojave na štakama u invalidskim kolicima.
Jacobsen: To je prikupiti simpatije.
Sakoda: Da, bilo je smiješno. Upravo je bio u Coloradu bez kisika. Dakle, ljudi su to prihvatili. Drugi set punjenja kad su sišli. Na neki način, to je bila prekretnica. Tada smo dobili više kredibiliteta. Prva optužba, rekli su ljudi – moja druga najdraža stvar, jest da se “otac izjasnio krivim samo kako bi spriječio tu žrtvu da mora lagati na klupi za svjedoke.” Kad se izjasniš krivim, moraš reći da sam ovo učinio, učinio sam ovo, pod prisegom. Je li mu bolje da laže? Nevjerojatno je koliko malo ljudi želi vjerovati da se ovo dogodilo. Pravoslavlje je savršeno spremno vjerovati da se to dogodilo u Katoličkoj crkvi.
Jacobsen: To je drugačiji okvir na NIMBY-ju. To se ne događa u mom dvorištu, ali ni ovdje.
Sakoda: Najviše će reći “Imaju oni svećenici u celibatu”. I pravoslavni svećenici mogu biti u celibatu. Neki od njih su zlostavljači. Svi pravoslavni episkopi ili moraju biti udovci. Bilo je biskupa koji su svoje žene smjestili u samostane. Moraju biti i neoženjeni. Dakle, imate dijelove svećenstva u celibatu u Pravoslavnoj crkvi. Ali mislim da ljudi imaju ideju da je to izbor. Morate odlučiti jeste li u celibatu ili ste u braku prije nego što se zaredite i imate izbor. Ali što se događa sa svećenikom čija žena umre? Ne može se ponovno vjenčati u pravoslavlju i biti svećenik. Dakle, dio je toga što je oženjen ili što je svećenik. Pred njim je težak izbor. Ali mislim da je glavna stvar to što ljudi svećenike u celibatu izjednačavaju sa zlostavljanjem. Zlostavljanje se ne odnosi na seks. Riječ je o moći i kontroli. To je kroz sredstvo seksa. To zbunjuje žrtvu.
Jacobsen: To se vraća na pitanje neupitne moći u toj određenoj strukturi. Ako imaju taj transcendentalni status koji se povezuje s nečim božanskim, mnogo je teže to dovoditi u pitanje, pogotovo ako ste odrasli ili bili prožeti time. Mnogo je teže to propitivati.
Sakoda: Mnogi svećenici govore uvjerljive laži. To je ono što Bog želi da činite. Ponekad će za djevojke reći: “Bog želi da te indoktriniram o tome što znači biti kršćanska žena,” ili tako nešto. To je jedna od onih stvari u kojima morate biti u situaciji. Morate biti dijete i shvatiti sve što se dogodilo prije ili druga taktika. Bio je to Phil Saviano. Razotkrivao je Katoličku crkvu. Rekao je: ‘Svećenik mi je dao pivo i dao mi pornografiju.’
Jacobsen: Ha!
Sakoda: ‘Sljedeći put je htio da idem dalje. Nisam mogao reći ‘Ne’ jer sam bio kompromitiran pivom i pornografijom.’ To je način na koji dječji umovi funkcioniraju.
Jacobsen: Da, u nekim od ovih priča ljudi nazaduju. Način na koji pričaju. Ne mogu samo reći ovom svećeniku “odjebi”, kolokvijalno rečeno.
Sakoda: Imao sam jednog čovjeka koji je dolazio na moje sastanke. Ne znam je li dolazio više puta. Imam sastanke podrške za preživjele. Rekao je: “Nisam siguran da bih trebao biti tamo”, jer je bio tamo kad ga je svećenik pokušao dotaknuti. Udario ga je i pobjegao.
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: On kaže: “Nisam bio zlostavljan,” ali ono što se dogodilo je da je njegovo povjerenje u instituciju umrlo, bilo da ga je svećenik doista dotaknuo ili ga je samo pokušao dotaknuti, a on je dobio udarac. Pokušavam reći ljudima sve vrijeme. Čak i ako pobjegnete, mnogi se ljudi smrznu. Čak i da ste ga zamrznuli ili udarili šakom, i dalje biste osjećali tu štetu. “O moj Bože, on bi trebao biti svećenik.” Posebno djeco, što učiniti da se zaštitite sljedeći put? “To mora biti nešto što sam ja učinio. Što da učinim da promijenim ovu situaciju?” Samo si na krivom mjestu u krivo vrijeme s krivom osobom. Vjerojatno ne možete ništa učiniti, posebno za malu djecu. Odrastao muškarac i 6-godišnjak, to nije ni poštena borba.
Jacobsen: 18, 20, 25, još uvijek imaju dosta razvoja osjećaja i stajanja u tome. Može biti mnogo ako ih dovoljno gurnete. Ne treba toliko gurati. Potrebno je dosta vremena da se dobije okosnica.
Sakoda: Posebno ako se suprotstavite nekome za koga vam je rečeno da predstavlja Boga. Sjećam se jednog preživjelog. Bio je zlostavljan kao odrasla osoba. Bio je sjemeništarac. Kad ga je svećenik napao, on se sledio. Bio je šokiran što bi svećenik to učinio. Poslije je imao toliko samooptuživanja i gađenja jer “Zašto nisam nešto učinio?” Mislim da je to teško. To nije samo borba ili bijeg. To je također borba, borba, smrzavanje, smrzavanje i udovoljavanje. Ljudi to zaborave. To se događa. Može postaviti uzorak. To zamrzavanje i popustljivost mogu vas pratiti u sličnim situacijama do kraja života. Možete se vratiti na taj odgovor umjesto da učinite nešto drugačije. Mislim da je trauma pohranjena u drugom dijelu mozga. Utječe na vaše ponašanje na načine kojih niste uvijek svjesni. Netko mi je rekao. Kad im je zlostavljač rekao da će ih ubiti ako progovore, a kad su progovorili, bili su prestravljeni. Ideja da dolazi sjekira. Iako je njihov zlostavljač bio mrtav, bilo je zastrašujuće javiti se zbog onoga što im je rečeno.
Jacobsen: Alati religijske indoktrinacije, po mom mišljenju, temelje se na strahu. Mnogo toga je pojačano strahom od smrti. “Radije ne bih razmišljao o ideji da bih prestao postojati i, prema tome, postojati vječno u nekoj drugoj transcendentnoj dimenziji.”
Sakoda: Dakle, “moram napraviti x, y i z.” To je poput naplatnih kuća. “Moram činiti sve što mi moj duhovnik kaže ili ću biti zauvijek proklet.”
Jacobsen: Najlakša prezentacija, mislim da je u suprotnosti s… životnom filozofijom ti si plamen. Kad jednom ugasiš plamen, ne ide nikamo. Jednostavno prestaje biti. Mislim da je i nama tako.
Sakoda: Nitko ne zna jer se nitko nije vratio (smijeh).
Jacobsen: Točno, ljudi koji vjeruju u Urija Gellera, kojeg je James Randi prikazao kao prevaranta na nacionalnoj televiziji na Johnnyju Carsonu. Slične krivotvorine i prijevare, i tako dalje, primjećujem isti fenomen koji opisujete kod pojedinaca koji iznose zlouporabu. Imaju javne slučajeve. Imaju podatke do 2020. Imaju novinske organizacije koje katalogiziraju stvari poput Hermine i Katherine. Ljudi, poput Dosjea X , žele vjerovati.
Sakoda: Imaju. Dio toga je da želite nastaviti s nečim većim od sebe. To je u redu. Ono što ne možeš imati je da me moj otac uništio. Rekao je: “Melanie, imaš glavu za učiniti više od ukrašavanja svojih ramena.”
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Fokusirao se na razmišljanje svojom glavom i nije govorio ljudima što da rade. Mislim da postoji taj element društvene uvjetovanosti. Gdje se trebaš pokoravati učiteljima. Trebao bi se pokoravati svećenicima. U osnovi, ljudi ne govore: “Što ako je svećenik kreten?” Što da im radim? Seksualno zlostavljanje je rašireno u društvu. Mislim da bi se to našlo u Crkvi. Mislim da bi mogli učiniti mnogo više da crkve učine sigurnijim mjestom ako ljudi idu u njih.
Jacobsen: Vjerojatno je to pilula koju je teško progutati jer čini da crkve izgledaju kao sve druge institucije, što će reći, ljudske. Tu je i činjenica da indoktrinacija počinje tako rano. Slažem se s Hipatijom. Ako nekoga prožmete dovoljno rano, vrlo mu je teško razotkriti moralne stvari, praznovjerja koja su izgrađena oko ovog kompleksa teologije i društvenog života, zajednice i rituala, te neupitni autoritet tih svećenika i biskupa .
Sakoda: Ipak, neki to prevladaju. Poznajem ženu koja vodi Bishop Accountability, Ann Barrett Doyle. Bila je jedna od onih koji su odgajani kao katolici. Sjećam se da sam čitao nešto o njoj. To je bilo kad je imala 14 godina. Njihov svećenik je nešto govorio. Mislila je da je to smiješno i ustala je. Dakle, kao što je moj otac rekao, imate ljude koji vjeruju u korištenje glave ili savjesti i progovaranje kada vide da nešto nije u redu. Osjećati se ugodno i imati nekoga tko vam govori što da radite je primamljivije. To nije vaša odgovornost.
Jacobsen: To je zastrašujuće za neke ljude.
Sakoda: Strašno je i na drugi način.
Jacobsen: Naravno.
Sakoda: Dakle, ako te starješina zamoli da nekoga ubiješ, ti kažeš: “Da, naravno.”
Jacobsen: [Smije se].
Sakoda: Onda ti idi i napravi to. Ali ti ćeš ići u Nebo jer si poslušao svoga duhovnog oca. To je, po meni, zastrašujuće. Mislim da je to perverzija onoga što religija zapravo jest.
Jacobsen: Budući da ste mi posvetili toliko svog dragocjenog vremena, gospođo.
Sakoda: [Smije se].
Jacobsen: Postavit ću posljednje pitanje.
Sakoda: Je li to trik pitanje? [smijeh]
Jacobsen: Nadam se da ne će. Kad biste mogli uputiti ljude na pojedince ili izvore kojima se mogu obratiti za pomoć ako dolaze iz pravoslavne tradicije, koga bi trebali potražiti? Od kojih organizacija mogu dobiti pomoć? Također, za sebe ili druge koji rade ovu vrstu posla, evo mog dosadašnjeg iskustva. To su – doslovno – žene koje rade ovaj posao. Kako ih mogu podržati svojim vremenom, vještinama, volonterskim naporima i financijama? Koji su načini pomoći također?
Sakoda: Što se tiče organizacija kao što je SNAP, imamo grupe podrške za preživjele. Slijede model sastanka AA. Većina ih ljudi nalazi ili kao dodatak terapiji ili ih neki koriste umjesto terapije. To je način upoznavanja drugih preživjelih ili odlaska u sobu gdje kažete: “Ovo mi se dogodilo kad sam imao 6 godina.” Umjesto da se ljudi okreću na drugu stranu ili govore: “Moraš oprostiti i zaboraviti,” ili bilo što. Ljudi će reći: “Razumijemo.”
Jacobsen: #Crkva također.
Sakoda: Da. U ovoj zemlji također postoji grupa pod nazivom RAINN, Rape Abuse Incest National Network. Imaju neke od istih usluga koje nude. Međutim, nisu specijalizirani za religiju ili religijsko zlostavljanje. SNAP je jedini za kojeg znam da to radi. Njegova misija je podržati one koji su preživjeli zlostavljanje i vjerske institucije. Možda ovo nije ono što ste ovime mislili. Mislim što ljudi mogu učiniti da pomognu. Ako netko dođe i povjeri ti se, kad sam imala 10 godina, moj svećenik me silovao, ili moj župnik ili što već.
Jacobsen: Ozbiljnost, samo čuti je vrlo… Ako čujete tu rečenicu, zastanite i poslušajte što vam govore; ne lažu ti, najvjerojatnije.
Sakoda: Što oni imaju od toga?
Jacobsen: Ozbiljno.
Sakoda: Što kažeš? Kažete: “Žao mi je. Žao mi je što ti se to dogodilo. Što mogu učiniti da vas podržim?” Možda ne možete učiniti puno toga. Možda je ovo njihovo iscjeljujuće putovanje. Ako prihvatite ono što oni kažu… Imao sam jednog preživjelog pravoslavca koji je bio zlostavljan. Kad sam počela razgovarati s njim, bilo je automatski, “Tako mi je žao što ti se dogodilo.” Počeo je plakati. Što da kažem? Rasplačem muškarce. Rekao je: “Nitko mi to nikada prije nije rekao. Da im je žao zbog onoga što mi se dogodilo.” To je kao, to je tužno.
Jacobsen: To prekida čaroliju. Kradem od sada već pokojnog filozofa, Daniela Dennetta, koji je napisao knjigu pod nazivom Razbijanje čarolije: Religija kao prirodni fenomen . Što učiniš kad to učiniš, društveno, barem za mene, razbiješ čaroliju. Muškarcima time razbijaš čaroliju.
Sakoda: Da, to pomaže; Što se tiče toga što može pomoći zagovornicima, ako su uključeni u organizaciju, možete je podržati. Kao što sam rekao, nikada ne dobivamo podršku da preuzmemo status neprofitne organizacije. Možda se i dogodi. Neću zadržati dah. Katolička crkva, čovjek bi pomislio da će pravoslavci razmišljati o SNAP-u. “To je za katolike.” Bilo je smiješno. Poslao sam jednu ženu. Bila je zlostavljana kao starija tinejdžerica. Mislim da je imala 19 godina, i to od pravoslavnog svećenika. Rekao sam: “Zašto ne probati jedan sastanak? Što će boljeti?” Rekla je: “O moj Bože, nisu imali redovni sastanak.” Ovaj je imao predstavu koja se izvodila u društvenom kazalištu ili tako nešto. Grupa ga je otišla vidjeti i podržati ga. Ona kaže: “O moj Bože, on je bio muškarac. Bila sam žena. Bio je katolik. Bio sam pravoslavac. Pričao je moju priču.”
Mislim da je to ono što možete pronaći u zajednici. Ako pronađete drugu organizaciju koja to radi, podržite ih! Jer to je natjerati ljude da se javljaju sve ranije i ranije. Ako imamo djecu koja se jave, onda će imati kaznene presude. Šanse su sljedeće: ako to objavi policija, ako drugi znaju, dobit ćete osude i neke od ovih ljudi iza rešetaka, a ne iza propovjedaonice. Što više to činite, više će ljudi biti spremni vjerovati u to. I dalje će postojati nekoliko vjerskih zanesenjaka koji nikad ne povjeruju u cijelu tu stvar o tome da je “Držao je ruke na njega!” Postoje neke promjene u katolicizmu, počevši s O, koje se događaju kada se zaredite. Najbolji odgovor koji sam ikad nekome dao, posebice Pravoslavnoj crkvi, bio je: “Crkva je možda mistična. To nije magija. Ako je netko zlostavljač prije nego što je zaređen, bit će zlostavljač i poslije. Ne će ih automatski popraviti.”
Publication (Outlet/Website): Love a Wholistic Life Inc.
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does the CDC’s statistic that two in five U.S. adults are living with obesity reflect broader societal trends?
Christen Kaplan and Elizabeth Inman: First, let’s look at what the definition of overweight or obesity means. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines overweight and obesity as having “excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health.” So, what does this mean for American adults? It means that obesity is a leading public health problem in the United States. The latest data from the CDC indicates that approximately 75% of adults aged 20 and older fall into the overweight and obese categories and 1 out of 10 of those are considered morbidly or severely morbidly obese. This is a serious concern because the five leading causes of preventable death in the United States are heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease (COPD), type 2 diabetes, and cancer which are all conditions linked to lifestyle choices and excessive weight gain.
According to the Joint Economic Committee Congress of The United States, obesity alone costs the U.S. healthcare system almost $283 billion annually on obesity-related direct health costs and is a major driver of federal healthcare spending. This includes money spent directly on medical care and prescription drugs that are related to the lifestyle conditions associated with extreme weight gain. Lastly, another important statistic from Human Resource & Payroll estimates that conditions associated with excessive weight gain have caused an additional $435.5 billion in economic costs to U.S. businesses and employers in 2023. Included in these expenses are medical costs to employers, higher disability payments, higher workers’ compensation program costs, and absenteeism at work. All of these economic societal trends severely affect the way our society functions.
Jacobsen: How does Love a Wholistic Life approach obesity differently?
Kaplan and Inman: At Love A Wholistic Life, we believe that education is the key to empowerment. Our holistic approach takes a comprehensive look at the body, examining its physical, emotional, and mental dimensions. Rather than simply focusing on weight loss, we prioritize uncovering the root causes of obesity. We recognize that excessive weight gain often signals deeper lifestyle conditions, emotional struggles, or unresolved issues. Research indicates that around 75% of excessive eating is emotionally driven, turning into habits that obscure underlying feelings. Many individuals’ resort to food as a means of escape, coping, or numbing rather than addressing their emotions head-on.
By providing our clients with the tools and resources they need, we help them address these underlying factors, fostering sustainable change rather than temporary fixes. Our program emphasizes education and self-discovery, equipping individuals with knowledge about their bodies and behaviors. Through personalized and online coaching, we guide our clients in developing healthier habits and making informed choices that support their overall well-being. Our clients learn to approach food and lifestyle with intention and mindfulness. This holistic journey not only promotes weight loss but also enhances overall quality of life, empowering individuals to thrive in all aspects of their health.
Jacobsen: How might Love A Wholistic Life address the root causes of lifestyle diseases?
Kaplan and Inman: Addressing the causes of lifestyle diseases involves understanding their multifaceted origins and understanding what the definition of a lifestyle disease means. A lifestyle disease is a health condition primarily influenced by an individual’s lifestyle choices and behaviors rather than by genetic factors or infectious agents. These diseases are often preventable and can be linked to factors such as poor diet, lack of quality sleep, stress, lack of physical activity, tobacco use, recreational drug use, overconsumption of prescription drugs, and excessive alcohol consumption. Common examples of lifestyle diseases include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity, inflammatory disease, and certain types of cancer. Lifestyle diseases typically develop over time due to cumulative unhealthy habits and can often be managed or mitigated through lifestyle changes. We find that the best approach is addressing these conditions through education. By teaching our clients what it means when they have been diagnosed with these lifestyle diseases, we explain what is going on in their bodies when they have a lifestyle disease, how they got the disease in the first place, and how they can use healthy lifestyle choices to control and possibly eliminate these conditions. Using natural approaches such as proper nutrition, getting active, and reducing or eliminating foods and behaviors that sabotage their health is key to improving and even reversing lifestyle disease. Basically, we teach people how to understand their body from the inside out as opposed to just thinking about it from just a weight loss perspective. In addition, we educate our clients to be advocates for their health by asking their healthcare professionals questions until they have a full understanding of what is happening in their bodies.
Jacobsen: What experience of loss has shaped your experience to wellness?
Kaplan and Inman: As children, we watched our parents grapple with the harsh realities of lifestyle diseases. Our mother’s struggle with prescription drug addiction and our father’s battle with severe obesity left deep scars on our family. It wasn’t just their health that suffered; the emotional toll reverberated through every aspect of our lives. We learned early on how devastating these conditions could be, not just for the individuals but for the entire family. As we transitioned into adulthood, we hoped to leave behind the struggles of our youth. Yet, in a cruel twist of fate, lifestyle diseases reared its ugly head yet again. At just 52, our oldest brother was taken from us far too soon due to heart disease, kidney failure and other complications associated with type 2 diabetes. His passing served as a stark reminder that these issues know no bounds—they can affect anyone, regardless of age or circumstance. Each of these experiences became a powerful lesson, igniting a passion for nutrition and wellness within us. We realized that understanding the roots of these diseases was essential not just for our own health, but for breaking the cycle within our family. We immersed ourselves in learning about healthy living, exploring how nutrition, exercise, and mental well-being intertwine. Our journey transformed from one of pain to one of empowerment.
We began advocating for healthier lifestyles, not just for ourselves but for others in our community. We became passionate about sharing our story, hoping to inspire change and raise awareness about the importance of nutrition and healthy lifestyle choices. In doing so, we discovered a renewed sense of purpose— turning our past struggles into a beacon of hope for ourselves and those around us. We are committed to breaking the cycle of lifestyle diseases, proving that change is possible and that every step toward health is a step toward a brighter future.
Jacobsen: What are key principles of plant-based nutrition?
Kaplan and Inman: To truly grasp the key principles of plant-based nutrition, we first need to understand what the term “food” encompasses. According to Oxford Languages, “food” refers to any nutritious whole or minimally processed items primarily derived from plant sources, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Plant-based nutrition advocates for a diverse range of food choices to ensure a wide array of natural options that are low in calories yet high in fiber, antioxidants, nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. It encourages the inclusion of healthy fats from sources like avocados and olive oil, as well as plant-based proteins from beans and legumes. Additionally, it promotes limiting added sugars and processed foods. For our clients, we emphasize that these foods play a crucial role in their bodies, not only supporting growth but also nourishing every cell and organ. This nutrient-rich approach helps our bodies thrive, bolsters the immune system, and provides essential protection for overall health.
Jacobsen: How do you define a healthy relationship with food?
Kaplan and Inman: A healthy relationship with food begins with the understanding that it serves as more than just sustenance; food has the power to heal and nourish our bodies on multiple levels. Recognizing this transformative potential can shift our perspective and highlight the importance of choosing a nutrient-dense diet rich in fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains. When we view food through the lens of healing, we start to appreciate its role in enhancing our well-being. Each bite becomes an opportunity to nourish not only our bodies but also our minds and spirits. Foods packed with vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants can help reduce inflammation, boost our immune system, and support our mental health. For example, vibrant fruits and vegetables provide essential nutrients that contribute to overall vitality, while whole grains offer sustained energy and promote digestive health. Furthermore, embracing this philosophy encourages mindfulness in our eating habits. It invites us to cultivate a deeper connection with our food—considering where it comes from, how it’s prepared, and the impact it has on our health. This awareness can foster more intentional choices, steering us away from processed foods laden with unhealthy additives and toward whole, nourishing options that support our well-being and guide us through our journey to good health.
Jacobsen: What role does empathy play in your work with clients?
Kaplan and Inman: In our opinion, empathy is one of the most vital qualities for success in our business. The ability to genuinely put ourselves in our clients’ shoes—both emotionally and situationally—allows us to grasp their unique perspectives and challenges. This deep understanding gives us a comprehensive view of their needs, enabling us to address their health issues in a more personalized manner. Empathy also empowers us to meet our clients exactly where they are in their journey. By acknowledging their emotional state, we can address not only their physical well-being but also their mental and emotional health. This holistic approach fosters a supportive environment where clients feel heard and valued. Our commitment to empathy goes beyond transactions; we strive to build meaningful relationships. In the process, we’ve not only gained clients but have also cultivated amazing long-term friendships. We take pride in being more than just their nutritionist and wellness coach; we aim to be a trusted ally in our clients’ lives. Their stories and experiences inspire us to continually improve and adapt our services, ensuring that we are not just meeting expectations but exceeding them.
Jacobsen: What role does empathy play in your work with clients?
Kaplan and Inman: In our opinion, empathy is one of the most vital qualities for success in our business. The ability to genuinely put ourselves in our clients’ shoes—both emotionally and situationally—allows us to grasp their unique perspectives and challenges. This deep understanding gives us a comprehensive view of their needs, enabling us to address their health issues in a more personalized manner. Empathy also empowers us to meet our clients exactly where they are in their journey. By acknowledging their emotional state, we can address not only their physical well-being but also their mental and emotional health. This holistic approach fosters a supportive environment where clients feel heard and valued. Our commitment to empathy goes beyond transactions; we strive to build meaningful relationships. In the process, we’ve not only gained clients but have also cultivated amazing long-term friendships. We take pride in being more than just their nutritionist and wellness coach; we aim to be a trusted ally in our clients’ lives. Their stories and experiences inspire us to continually improve and adapt our services, ensuring that we are not just meeting expectations but exceeding them.
Jacobsen: What are the most common misconceptions people have about nutrition and tackling obesity?
Kaplan and Inman: One common misconception is that all carbohydrates are alike, but that’s simply not true! There are actually two main types of carbohydrates: simple and complex.
Simple carbohydrates are often found in ultra-processed foods like soda, baked treats, packaged cookies, fruit juice concentrates, and many breakfast cereals. These carbs provide a quick boost of energy but can also spike blood sugar levels. Because they lack fiber and essential nutrients, simple carbs are often referred to as “empty calories.”
On the other hand, complex carbohydrates are found in whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables. They offer a more gradual release of energy, leading to a slower, steadier rise in blood sugar over time. Complex carbohydrates are not only beneficial for sustained energy but are also easily processed by the body, providing essential nutrients that support overall health.
Another common misconception is that all fats are unhealthy. That is also not true. In fact, healthy fats, such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, are found in foods like avocados, wild-caught fish, nuts, seeds, and extra virgin olive oil. These fats provide protein, fiber, and essential vitamins, playing vital roles in building cell membranes, aiding blood clotting, supporting muscle movement, and promoting heart and brain health.
In contrast, unhealthy fats include saturated fats and trans fats. These fats are typically found in animal-based foods such as fatty cuts of meat, dairy products, and tropical oils like coconut and palm oil, which are often used in fried foods, baked goods, and processed snacks. These unhealthy fats can negatively impact cholesterol and blood sugar levels, increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
Some of our clients have held the misconception that taking a daily multivitamin allows them to eat less healthy foods without consequence. While multivitamins can be beneficial for filling certain nutritional gaps, they are not a substitute for a well-balanced diet. A nutritious diet rich in fiber, protein, antioxidants, and healthy fats provides a range of essential nutrients that multivitamins simply cannot replicate. Whole foods offer synergistic benefits that enhance nutrient absorption and overall health. For example, fruits and vegetables are packed with antioxidants that help combat oxidative stress, while whole grains provide fiber that supports digestive health. Additionally, healthy fats from sources like avocados and nuts contribute to brain health and hormone regulation.
Relying solely on supplements can lead to deficiencies in key nutrients and may not provide the same health benefits as consuming a variety of whole foods. Ultimately, a balanced diet is crucial for maintaining optimal health, supporting bodily functions, and reducing the risk of chronic diseases.
Jacobsen: How do you measure success in clients?
Kaplan and Inman: Success often holds different meanings for each of our clients. Since we primarily work with individuals struggling with obesity and lifestyle diseases, their definitions of success depend on the personal goals they set. Some clients focus solely on weight loss, while many aim to reduce their reliance on prescription medications. Common concerns among our clients include regulating blood pressure, lowering glucose levels, and reducing cholesterol. We measure their success by assessing how well they transition into positive lifestyle changes that are sustainable beyond our support. As they achieve their personal goals, we empower them with the tools and knowledge necessary to maintain a lifestyle that promotes a healthy quality of life.
Adopting healthy lifestyle changes, such as proper nutrition, is not merely about eating the right foods; it also involves understanding why our bodies require these nutrients and recognizing the detrimental effects of the Standard American Diet, which often leads to lifestyle diseases. Clients must embrace the reality that their choices can have either a positive impact on their health or lead to negative consequences. While some clients find that they can maintain their progress with little to no ongoing support after just a few months in the program, others face a longer journey and require our guidance until they feel confident managing on their own. The rise of “quick-fix” prescription weight-loss drugs has made our job more challenging, often undermining long-term success for many in the overweight and obese community. This is a constant battle for us, but it’s one we are committed to fighting for the well-being of our clients.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Christen and Elizabeth.
From Atheist RepublicScott Jabobsen with the second part of an interview conducted with Allie Jackson, the group’s CEO.
If you haven’t read it yet, go back to see the article “Interview with Allie Jackson – CEO, Atheist Republic Part 1” by clicking here.
Jacobsen: If we’re looking at Atheist Republic, what are we looking at in terms of demographics? Jackson: Not surprisingly, mostly male, I do look at the demographics that follow our page. We have ~70% men to ~30% women. It is uneven there. What I find is most of our followers are probably ex-Muslim, we have a huge American, Canadian, European following.
Jacobsen: Since they are mostly men, younger, and ex-Muslim, are these the countries that the ex-Muslim men, not necessarily flee to but, get away from the dominant Islamic culture? Jackson: It always starts off with that is what they think is going to happen. However, it’s something very emotional for me. A family, an entire family, had to flee Pakistan over a man saying, “Atheists might not be that bad,” on social media. People ransacked his house.
They had to take his children and flee to an island north of Australia, which they got to them. Their asylum there. Then they had to go to the Philippines. Mostly, it is what you can afford. If you look at the atheist community, there are not a lot of groups that help with asylum.
Asylum costs money. People need to get to these countries. They need lawyers. If no lawyers, they are taken advantage of. There was an Iranian atheist I was helping. He got a lawyer that had no idea. He had no clue about these kinds of processes.
One of the letters he wrote cost this man his asylum. The wording he used cost him his asylum. When it was all submitted and the lawyer said, “I am sure it will be fine. He is scared to go back home,” no there was a video of an Islamic video describing the beheading they were going to give him when he returned to Iran.
That is not scared to go home. That is not, “I am scared someone might hurt me.” There are people actively trying to kill him. You must be so careful about what you say in these cases. People take advantage of these cases, take their money.
The Atheist Alliance International is one of the few atheist groups that they do help with this. So, everything I know about asylum, everything that I gather is from experience. I learn from one case at a time.
When I am constantly bombarded with people saying, “I need asylum. These people are going to kill me. These people found a letter I wrote. These people saw a text message I sent to somebody. They are going to kill me. My dad and family are going to kill me,” you can only sit there and listen to that as an emotional shoulder for so long.
After that, you must get your hands into this. You must start mapping out ideas for asylum. So, I hit the books. I mean non-literally [Laughing]. I hit Google. I started getting contacts and figuring out: What is the process? What can help?
Jacobsen: Who can help them? Jackson: That is a hard question.
Jacobsen: Let’s say, within North America, if not necessarily help, then give guidance. Should they contact some branch of Amnesty International or another organization like that?
Jackson: The UNHCR, I have worked with them the past couple of months. We have been dealing with a couple reports on what they will do for asylum seekers, and for people from Islamic countries that are atheists seeking help, because many will not talk to me.
They won’t tell me what is going on. Although, I have sent letters to one of their clients, but they will not respond to me. Finally, I got letters from their legal department, reminding me that they won’t talk to me.
I have been considering them, asking, “What will you do for these people?” The Pakistani family – that I told you about – that after he had been denied, after I sent in a letter from Atheist Republic describing what this person was going through, and that it was a verified story.
The person called them and said that they had to leave and had 90 days. I began to cry. He said, “I can’t bring my family back to Pakistan. They are going to kill me. I committed blasphemy.” If they are going to work for ex-Muslims, or for people who are seeking refuge in another country because atheism is deadly in Islamic countries, they need to know this is an issue.
I said:
Who can I talk to so I can file a report, to help you guys help people? Do you know what atheists face in Islamic countries?” I have been getting little help by the legal department. It is difficult to tell people, “You can go to this or that person because they can help you.
I feel as if I am doing that I am passing the buck. In this case, it is somebody’s life. I can’t live with that. It has been hard. We get so many cases flowing in. Once they contact this or that organization, often, they get denied. Those organizations have 50 people coming to them per day.
It is not that they don’t care. They do. But finding an organization that is big enough and can handle the load that needs help, I don’t think it exists.
Jacobsen: I think of two cases or themes. We both know women especially in religiously dominated countries – where religion and government are one and the same – that women are functionally or effectively second-class citizens.
Bearing in mind, the religion is mixed with the government. So, if it is costing money, as you noted, to take on these cases or to travel to another country and then pay for the legal assistance, if you’re a woman that is poor, it doesn’t even come out as an option.
It might explain some of the first waves of this, into more secular societies, being men, possibly. Men will have the finances to do so. I think of another case, not from that perspective, but internal to North America.
There are issues for non-believing women who – it is a sensibility, so it is not a firm argument – must work through the arts over decades to get some manner of influence. I think of Margaret Atwood.
Where she takes real cases, in parts, compiles them into a narrative, in some near-future dystopia, with the most famous example being The Handmaid’s Tale, which is coming out, I guess, in some television series, do these seem like possible trends – not from argument, but more from sensibilities and so very loose perceptions of things?
Jackson: It is hard for me. I think of women who are trapped in religion. I think of women who break out of religion, and why. In my time of doing what I do, I am not talking about the Atheist Republic work; I am talking about the one-on-one support group.
I met three women in two years, who have come out wanting help. People ask, “Why? Why is that?” I can only speak by what those few have told me. They understood that they were a slave. They understood where they were.
They said that their dream of becoming free was too great. To know there is a way to get out, and not pursue that dream, they would rather kill themselves. One woman was being abused by her husband.
Our communication didn’t get far. She said she lost faith in Islam. She had two children. Her husband beat her and her kids, and treated her terribly. The last communication I got from her said, “He found our communications. I have to say, ‘Goodbye.’”
I don’t know what happened to her. I don’t know if she ever got out. More than likely, she was probably killed trying to leave her husband, leave Islam. It is not a kind world to women. It is frustrating because, on the one hand, everyone has a right to an opinion. But on the other hand, I think people should want to become more educated on topics to hold the right opinion because when it comes to women in countries, it is heartbreaking. It is so heartbreaking what they must go through.
There are women who have taken Stockholm Syndrome. We know women who are captured by men. People who are captured by other people will begin to identify with their captors. But, I’m sorry.
When I see some women get up and say, “This is freedom for me,” I can’t help thinking of the women who felt that was slavery for them.
So, it is one of the things we were talking about earlier. We can’t block people. We can’t say, ‘All Muslims. All Christians.” I can’t say, “All women.” But I can say, ‘One woman’s freedom is another woman’s slavery.’
I think people who want to speak out against women being forced to wear a burqa. They don’t want to wear a burqa. I think that is perfectly valid. I think that we in America, and the West, need to stop looking at the burqa as a form of liberation.
It may be a form of liberation for some women, but let’s not block women. Let’s not put them into a block and say, “This is freedom for you. Take it.” It makes no sense. It is a contradictory statement [Laughing].
“You wearing that is a signal of your freedom.” It is hard.
Jacobsen: Going back to some of your Baptist roots, when you were in interaction as a very strong believer – Fox News, Baptist with father from an Abrahamic tradition, what was your perception of those that were out-and-out atheists – who were outspoken, articulate, and bold? Jackson: I didn’t feel they existed. I didn’t believe. My dad would tell me about these people who didn’t believe in God. I though they may live in the jungle in a tribe, so that was why they didn’t believe. I didn’t think they existed.
Who wouldn’t want the love of God? I couldn’t even comprehend it.
Jacobsen: If you look at statistics, America has a prominent level of belief in angels, efficacy of prayer, demons, heaven, and so on. Did you see what you deemed “evil” behavior as influenced by a real devil, a real Satan?
Jackson: Absolutely, I thoroughly believed in demons and Satan. I thought that, maybe, I had been possessed by a demon, who was taking over my thoughts or allowing me to focus on ungodly things and wants and desires.
I thought that could happen. When I was a child, my mother constantly talked about demons and hell. She put a huge fear of demons in us. I remember not being able to sleep because I was praying to God to keep me safe. I thought I did something bad, and so a demon would come.
My mom said we were possessed when I was a baby. She was recording babble when I was a baby. Obviously, it showed she wanted to hear the recording for some reason. It said, “Come with me mama, the baby wants you to go to hell.”
So, she had our preacher come by and exorcise the house, bless the house, if you will. Now, that I look back at the story and all the things she claimed would happen, such as doors opening and closing shut all at once in the house – cabinets would open and close all the time.
When I look back at what had to have happened because she gave the tape to my dad and her pastor, who said that to the recording? Demons aren’t real. I know that. I know demons aren’t real. It is amazing when you stop believing in demons how all that fear goes away.
No more possession and fear of possession. What lengths do people go to keep their beliefs? Is it really to the point of faking a tape, so that your preacher will come to the house and bless it? I looked at the things I did as well, to keep my faith.
The various positions I would take and try to rationalize how God allow rape and slavery. I would rationalize these things in my head, to make it okay for me to keep my belief. People will go through very strange rituals to prove what they believe is real. Scary.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, and the openness to express sensitive issues. Jackson: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about the issues and get a chance to tell people what we do at the Atheist Republic.
Scott Jacobsen in conversation with Leslea Mair, Co-Director Of Losing Our Religion.
Leslea Mair is the Co-Director of the documentary film Losing Our Religion. Her work builds on the research done by Linda LaScola and Daniel Dennett through the foundation of The Clergy Project. Here we explore the documentary film. The film is scheduled for purchase in November 2018. You may order your copy from the website Losing Our Religion.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration for the title and content of the new fabulous document film Losing Our Religion?
Leslea Mair: Wow, that’s quite a compliment! Thank you!
I wanted to make this film after hearing about The Clergy Project. I think changing your mind about something as important to your world view as religion is such an interesting process. But for ministers to stop believing struck me as a real personal earthquake. I read the stories of the non-believing clergy in Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola’s studies and really wanted to explore stories like that. I was so curious about how that plays out for people, not just in the short term.
Jacobsen: You co-directed the film with Leif Kaldor and based on the work of Professor Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola. How did you come into contact with Leif Kaldor and the research of Dennett and LaScola?
Mair: Leif and I met at a film festival in central Saskatchewan, close to where we both grew up, about 20 years ago. We’ve been business partners and a couple since then. We bring complementary skill sets to directing – we’ve made quite a number of films together. It’s a partnership that works really well for us.
I was the one who tripped across the studies that Dennett and LaScola published, but we were both intrigued by it from the start. I think I first read about them on some secular/atheist blogs and started thinking about what kind of story you could tell about it, so the film was kind of my baby at the start. But we always bounce ideas off one another, so Leif very quickly became involved in the process. His take on the subject was a little different than mine – his childhood had a lot more religious influence than mine did, so it was a good counterpoint to my thinking in the early stages of developing the idea.
Jacobsen: On reflection and reading of Dennett’s and LaScola’s work, what particular findings struck you, stood out to you?
Mair: The thing that really struck me was how traumatic giving up on believing was for people. You have to understand, I’ve never been a believer, so the idea that you can still be emotionally attached to the idea of a deity even when you’ve ceased believing in it was a little foreign to me. I wanted to understand that better.
What also made an impression on me – although it didn’t completely surprise me – was how swift and unkind, sometimes even cruel, the reactions to these people were when they either confessed or were found out. I was surprised by how strong that reaction was, and that the risks people take in talking frankly about nonbelief are very real and quite severe in some places.
Jacobsen: Minister Gretta Vosper contributed to the documentary film as well. What role did she play in the film?
Mair: Gretta is one of the people who is trying to make non-belief work in a traditionally believing environment. She’s an out atheist in the pulpit. The United Church of Canada is one of the most liberal and progressive denominations out there – I grew up in the United Church myself. So when Gretta and I first started talking, it totally made sense to me that if there was any organization that could handle this, it was this one. But there was still some serious pushback. She was called up on the carpet and has been judged unfit for ministry by a panel in the UCC, but she’s still in her congregation. They’re still trying to figure out what to do with her — they don’t know how to excommunicate her because they’ve never done anything like that — there’s no process, really. It would be funny if it didn’t have such serious repercussions for her.
What role Gretta and her congregation played was to show that a church-style community could be secular in nature. They’re trying to pull a shrinking institution into the future. It’s important work, and the struggle continues.
Jacobsen: How do their narratives speak to the stories of others throughout North America?
Mair: Brendan and Jenn Murphy are our primary characters. They’re a couple in the US — Brendan is a former evangelical pastor, Jenn is his wife.
When I met them, Brendan was a “closeted” atheist and still working in ministry, but Jenn was a devout believer. So they were dealing with multiple layers of crisis. Brendan had joined The Clergy Project and Linda LaScola had put him in touch with me. When he agreed to an interview, he wanted to bring Jenn along, and I was fine with that. I didn’t think it was going to amount to anything. I was SO wrong! Jenn’s a really brave and amazing woman. She was so nervous that day, but she still sat down and gave me not just an interview, but really opened up. This was a major shake-up for her in her personal life and in her faith, and I’m still blown away at how much courage she and Brendan had in doing this.
I was able to follow their story from that point, through leaving the ministry under duress and into their current lives.
Jacobsen: What documentary films speak to telling these important narratives of loss of faith, especially in countries without the massive number of public privileges won such as our own?
Mair: There are a few out there – one of our contributors, Jerry De Witt, is featured in a film that has an excerpt out on the New York Times Op Docs called “The Outcast of Beauregard Parish” about his experience exiting the ministry. And there’s a film called “One of Us” about the struggles of three ex-Hasidic Jews who are adjusting to secular life. And Bart Campolo has just come out with a film about his relationship with his father, Tony Campolo, and how they’ve navigated Bart leaving faith behind.
I don’t know of many films coming out of non-Western countries on the subject, but it’s very dangerous to approach atheism in many places. You’d be taking a grave risk and often putting your contributors in jeopardy. I’d love to find a way to do that if some risk could be minimized.
It’s also hard to find the funding to make a full-length documentary film, or I suspect we’d see a lot more of them. The stories are certainly out there, and there are more of them all the time as people leave faith behind. As far as I know, Losing Our Religion is the only feature-length documentary on The Clergy Project so far.
Jacobsen: What targeted areas of activism seem the most relevant at this moment in time now? For example, the work to prevent the ongoing attempts at the encroachment of individual rights to reproductive health including abortion, the rights to medical care, the right to die, and so on, from groups, ironically, with open, grand, self-righteous proclamations about individualism, the “divine individual,” and individual rights as the highest values to attain within the country – ironic because their preventative and obstructive attempts stand in opposition to these individual rights of legal persons in Canada, of full adult citizens in Canada. I see a similar tragic irony in pro-life activists killing doctors.
Mair: Oh, gosh. There’s so much work to do, isn’t there?
We’re in such a rapid state of change right now. I think that the majority of people — especially here in Canada, although I know a lot of Americans who feel the same way — support reproductive rights, the right to die and universal health care. It’s the vocal minorities that get in the way of those rights. I think Dan Barker said it best in our film when he talked about the religious political right dying out, knowing they’re dying out, and lashing out at anyone and anything that threatens them. The world is changing. It’s going to continue to change. The one advantage the religious right has is that it has an organized voice. I think we have to build communities of support so that we have an organized voice as well.
The really hopeful thing is that those communities are starting to happen — the Oasis communities and Sunday Assemblies and other humanist and secular groups are starting to grow and they’re becoming more active in addressing social justice issues. So I’m optimistic. There are some really fantastic people out there.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or feelings in conclusion?
Mair: Not that I can think of!
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leslea.
From Atheist RepublicScott Jabobsen with the fkirst part of an interview conducted with Allie Jackson, the group’s CEO.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Recently, the Atheist Republic Facebook page was shut down. Why was that? How can Facebook do that without necessarily letting you know or with authorization? Allie Jackson: Isn’t that a good question? We would love to know why. We were shut down, not once but twice, in less than 24 hours without warning. Normally, we know when there is a problem because Facebook will let us know they removed some post for some reason.
This has happened for years. They used to send us a picture letting us know which post was removed. We had a post removed that no one could tell what it was. This has been happening for quite some time now.
We post about once per hour, sometimes more and sometimes less. They say, “We removed this post for violating our terms.” We can’t know which post because they didn’t send a picture. Oftentimes, what they removed is innocent. It didn’t break terms of service. But we’ve learned to live with that.
So, leading up to this ban, they stopped showing us what they were removing from our page. We didn’t get an indication that a post was removed, then we’ve got this notification that we’d been restricted.
Some features had been restricted [Laughing]. It is mind-boggling. We click the notification. It takes us to the page. It is very normal, but then we realized that our posts weren’t reaching people and nobody was able to see our post unless they went to our page.
That went on for a couple of hours. We ended up putting in an appeal, of course. We ended up rallying the community because we saw that the Ex-Muslims of North America got a notification saying this restriction will last for one week and because the post was against the terms of service.
Something that I hadn’t heard before. So, a couple hours before we put in the appeal. It was the next day, but not the full 24 hours. Our page was completely taken down and unpublished. No reasons, again, and no posts were removed, just – boom! – “we’ve unpublished your page.”
It is frustrating because we don’t know what we did wrong. It is the same process. When we have a post removed, we want to improve things. We understand Facebook is a private company. We understand they have a right to run their own company.
It was not illegal, but I feel what they did was unethical. To take a paying customer and then remove the platform from 1.6 million people who want the content that we’re putting out there; that is not a very business-like way of doing things, I think.
It was very frustrating on that level.
Jacobsen: Once you get past 1.5 million, there aren’t that many groups. They are there, but not many. 1.6 million, given all of Facebook, it is relatively small, but given the community, it is relatively large. The fact that it happened for a Facebook group housed, in essence, in Canada is rather remarkable.
Jackson: Absolutely.
Jacobsen: The first time when they took it down, they said you lost some features. Did they specify any at all? Jackson: They didn’t specify anything. It popped up, like a notification if somebody liked a photo or commented on something that you commented on. It popped up in a notification, not explaining what features were removed.
We had to go through and figure it out. There were two: the speak now button and the news feed. People could not leave messages, and no one could get our posts.
Jacobsen: Has Facebook done this to ex-Muslim or ex-anything groups before?
Jackson: Absolutely, the most we hear about are ex-Muslim groups, especially Arab ex-Muslim groups.
Jacobsen: Is this regardless of location, whether Saudi Arabia or America? Jackson: Absolutely. It is so sad too. This is a small group without a platform. They can’t say this is a big problem. We get these people coming to us and saying, “Wow, I had 17,000 people in a group. Facebook removed the group.”
Or another is that Facebook removed the group because we post scientific stuff and have “atheist” in the title. I am on a secret Facebook group with other admins of other groups. Many have had their pages down for six months now, with no reason or warning.
Many of them hadn’t even had a post removed. All of a sudden. Poof! They are gone. It is hard working from our platform and point of view because there are pages that I know – because I follow them [Laughing] – were not violating any terms of service.
If the offense is now a violation of terms of service, then let’s shut down Facebook because everything can be offensive. I look at things as far as terms of service and community standards. Those are two things I have engulfed the knowledge about.
We have a group with many members. It is a big Facebook group. So, we are dedicated. If anybody looks at our rules that we lay out for the group, we are dedicated to prevention of hate speech and make sure that everything is in line there.
On the page, though, things are different. We can control what we post, but not what others post. On a page of 1.6 million, Facebook could easily find them. Every single post we’ve put out has never had anything to do with hate speech.
People want to say hate speech is an opinion. In reality, it is not. If you look at its definition, it talks about inciting violence or hatred toward people or a group of people. We are not setting out to hurt anyone.
We don’t want anyone hurt, even their feelings. We attack ideas, not people. So, it is really difficult when people say, “You’re hateful.” No, we have a platform with anyone free to fight an idea. We don’t ban theists or Muslims, or Christians, or any specific groups. If somebody doesn’t like what we say, maybe, they can educate us. They are free to do that.
Jacobsen: Do you think the equivalent opposite case happens when Muslim groups will state openly that atheists are going to hellfire or some equivalent, and they don’t get taken down – even though that would be about people rather than others such as on Atheist Republic criticizing the authenticity of a text and the validity/soundness of arguments for one particular faith? Jackson: Yes, I think it is outrageously unfair. We have received, over the years, so many death threats. The rainbow Kaaba was probably one of the most controversial things we’ve shared. The whole purpose and point was love should be free for everyone.
Everyone, anywhere should be able to love anyone the way they want. We got so much support from the Muslim community, “Please don’t share my name, but I am gay and Muslim, and I can’t tell anyone my name. Your message gave us a lot of hope.”
It is not like we focus on atheist problems or only atheists. We focus on a lot of problems that stem from religious indoctrination, such as the hatred against the LGBTQ+ community by some people. Most Muslims support the community.
Unfortunately, they face criticism from their own community for doing that, but for me to get back to the hate speech, that happens. We have people who have sent us a man who was tied to a cross with his head cut off and his head laying at his feet. They said, “You’re next.”
We get people saying, “What is your physical address? Do you remember what happened to Charlie Hebdo? You’re next.” I have had someone say, “I am going to chop off your head and rape your neck hole.”
Facebook says, “Thank you for sending this. It doesn’t violate our terms of service or community standards. We can’t do anything, but you can ban them.” Armin and I both got banned once because he posted my picture and said, “Allie was sent to us from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen.”
That got mass reported and we got banned from our accounts for it. I am seeing this. This is just what I am seeing. I am not saying this is backed because I am seeing it. But from my perspective, it seems like there is some sort of bias.
It is very frustrating.
Jacobsen: The particular case you gave with Armin Navabi, the founder of Atheist Republic, is stating a parody religion’s “deity”. In the other case, it is directed at someone. One is a direct threat to a person. One is to you. Another is directed playfully at an idea. People would seem to be insecure enough to find that threat enough to report en masse. People don’t want to be considered a block: all Christians, all Muslims, and so on. But then they want to take pride in saying, “We are one of the biggest religions, and so on.”
I have heard this. I am sure you have too. But even more, there is a population of over a billion called the religiously unaffiliated, but, maybe, there may need to be a coalition of some form. It is like “herding cats.” I am sure you’ve heard it. Jackson: [Laughing] It is so true. We are tied only by the lack of belief in God. Other than that, an atheist can believe in reincarnation, in ghosts, in Karma. So, when you see different organizations of atheists…
I am a big friend, to me, of an organization called Mythicist Milwaukee. They don’t believe the Biblical Jesus existed. Then you look at people like Bart Ehrman. There was a debate between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Price, both who have different beliefs. Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Ehrman completely disagree with each other.
Often, they write back and forth about their disagreement. You have these different groups of atheists that know what needs to be done for social justice around the world. So, it is hard. It is hard to take these people and bring them together. The religious are lucky. They have a book and rules, which says, “All will think this way because it says in the text.” Even they can’t get it right. We have tons of Christians who love the LGBT community, then we have Christians at the Westboro Baptist Church [Laughing].
Jacobsen: [Laughing]. Jackson: They have more to tie them together. That’s what I love about the Atheist Republic. Even if we disagree with an idea, we are a volunteer team of 300 people. We have different beliefs on politics. We have different views on many things.
We don’t restrict our page to be about one topic. We don’t just dump on one thing, or take one political side. People get upset when we make jokes about Donald Trump. We make the same jokes about Hillary Clinton.
We joke. We have fun. We have different beliefs. That brings us together more than anything. Atheist Republic puts that out there. Even if we don’t believe in it, we will be a platform for you. That is a mentality for bringing all of us atheists together.
Jacobsen: To your own experience, what made atheism seem obviously true – an argument, a disenchantment with traditional religious structures, a cranky parent, not taking the myths seriously, and so on?
Jackson: I was a strong Christian. I prided myself on being a child of God. I talked about my high school summer vacations. While my friends were partying and drinking, I was reading the Bible. I was reading it for Bible school.
I talked about it with people. I loved God. It was my senior year in high school. Things started clicking with me. I was never really allowed to question things growing up. I lived in a very conservative household. I watched Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, [Laughing] probably more than I’d like to say.
They hated homosexuals. They hated anyone different. It was around that time that I said, “I have a friend at school who is gay. I never even really questioned my own sexuality. I was straight because that’s what the Bible said I was to be.”
I never really questioned anything. But at that moment, I was saying, “I don’t want to hate people.” The second I said that, something clicked. When I left my family, and when I started studying at a Catholic university, I would stay in the library and study the Bible.
I loved being God’s child but it began to be more difficult for me. Social media began to boom. It wasn’t big in high school [Laughing]. I saw friends posting these awful things about Jesus, so I would immediately unfriend them. It hurt.
Once I was honest with those images, I decided I might be hurting because the images hold some truth. Things became harder. I began reading the story of Samson in the library. How Samson gathered 300 foxes, tied their tails together, and marched them into town to destroy.
It was so unreal. In my head, and I am sorry, I said, “This is bullshit.” I immediately got scared. At that moment, I immediately said, “I can’t do this anymore. I can’t do this anymore.”
Jacobsen: I want to dig a little deeper. I think there is an important moment there. Where Samson pulls the foxes into town, and you realize how unreal this is and say, “This is bullshit,” then there was fear, what was the fear? Jackson: Questioning God, questioning God, that I would burn in hell. The days following, it brings me to tears just thinking about it. It was such a draining moment of my life. I prayed to a god I no longer believed in, begging him to give my faith back.
Jacobsen: Wow.
Jackson: I spoke to God on a personal level. I truly thought I felt God in my heart, not understanding that that was my own compassion that I was showing myself. I truly thought that was God loving me, being there for me in my tough times, and I didn’t want to live with the thought of not being God’s child anymore – and losing God.
I was praying to a god I no longer believed in, to give me my faith back, because I was so lonely. After that, I didn’t feel God anymore. It took years to realize I was an atheist after that. I didn’t tell anybody. I didn’t believe anymore. I stopped going to churches – sorry. I am choking up.
Jacobsen: It’s okay. Jackson: I stopped doing things that normal Christian people do. I slowly stopped doing it. Then I had this fight inside me. I feared hell. I knew I was going to hell. I knew somehow the world had corrupted me.
This sounds crazy. Right?
Jacobsen: No, it doesn’t. It is telling me something very deep. Rarely, people lose complete worldviews at once. You’re describing emotional reactions that are still in place, but you’re consciously losing bit-by-bit. So, you lose the belief in God, but still have the belief in prayer – and the efficacy of it.
But when you lose that, you still had the belief in hell. So, the fear was still there. The way you ordered it was a fear I no longer had in God, but also, following that, was a fear of hell. So, I am noticing that bit-by-bit. It is almost like a jigsaw puzzle where you’re removing the pieces rather than an orb that just melts.
That’s not crazy. Jackson: I was then scared when I realized I was an atheist. That, suddenly, I might start doing something bad because I don’t have any morality.
Jacobsen: Go to hell to morality. Jackson: Absolutely. Why do I have compassion? God gave me that. I am going to hell, even though I stopped believing in hell. I couldn’t shake it. It was still there in the back of my mind. We live our lives as Christians.
When I take myself back to the mind frame, we live our lives for the afterlife. This doesn’t matter.
Jacobsen: What was the branch of Christianity? Jackson: Southern Baptist. If everything is for the afterlife, why do anything for this life? It was an amazing transformation. I was a girl who helped other Christians. I volunteered at the church. I was a good girl.
To where I am now, where I help and run a one-on-one support group through Atheist Republic, we help people all around the world. We don’t have the resources unfortunately to pay a lot of money to help them with those needs.
We volunteer our time. We could be at the movies.
Jacobsen: Your Sundays are free now. Jackson: [Laughing] That’s true. There is nothing that drives us to do that as far as a spiritual being is concerned. There is no reward that we will get from him. We know there is no physical reward for it.
We know we will be making the world a better place one person at a time. If we didn’t help someone out of a funk, we could find them resources for a doctor if they didn’t have insurance, or that an ex-Muslim is cared about by someone – right here, right now, let’s cry together.
Tell me everything. For the first time in their lives, in their own country where they can’t tell anyone about their atheism, that changes their world.
Jacobsen: In the back of my mind, when you said, “This is bullshit,” I was thinking about the power of words. Of not only that, but of the spoken word for an individual, either to hear someone else say, “I don’t believe this,” or to say, “This is bullshit,” [Laughing] in more colloquial terms. I feel as though religious authorities, and more religiously authoritarian countries, know this quite deeply. So, they label, as in Saudi Arabia, atheists as terrorists – or ideological threats [Laughing]. I think that one-on-one work is very powerful for a lot of people.
Jackson: That it is. I can’t imagine doing anything else. It is my true passion. It is what I love doing. I couldn’t imagine anything else.
Armin Navabi explains to Scott Jacobsen from Atheist Republic the dangers of moral relativism.
Add caption
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I hear arguments from different people on Islamic countries and people who live in them. Some argue for different standards for different beliefs and groups. If not in an explicit manner, then the implicit understanding in the conversation amounts to different standards for different people. The conversations start with the general question about judgment of people who live in Islamic countries. In these dialogues, the person may respond with a question, “Who are we to judge people living in Islamic countries?”
Armin Navabi: We are all human beings. That is what we all are. Why does care for our fellow human beings have to be dependent on their location? Why does it have to be dependent on where they were born, their race, or how far or how close they are to us? I do not understand the relevance of that. Pain is pain. Happiness is happiness. I believe that it does not matter if somebody is hungry next to you, or if somebody is hungry a thousand kilometers from you. It does not matter if somebody is being oppressed right next to you or if somebody is being oppressed a thousand kilometers from you. That somebody is human. They need your help.
We Are All Connected
The idea of “I can help people who are next to me more than I could help people far away from me” does not exist anymore. We are all connected globally, through the advances in technology, that it is so easy to help other people with little effort and little budget.
Today, you can make a huge difference for people you have never even met or will never even meet. You can make a difference for people, whichever corner of the world they are in now. In fact, you might be able to make more of a difference because you live in a country where you could speak freely.
They Need Your Voice
You live in a country where you could say whatever you want. People living in Islamic countries do not. They do not live in a country where they can speak their minds. That is why you might be able to make a bigger difference in their lives compared to people close to you. They need your voice. Because when they do speak, these people will get prosecuted and go to jail. They lose their freedom. They lose their safety. These are people taken away from their children. There are even people who pay the government for the cost of executing their loved ones.
Arrogance in Freedom
Liberated countries enjoy some or most of these rights: freedom of speech, right to peace, equality, anti-discrimination, men and women are equal, homosexuals should not to be prosecuted for being gay, and for people of the minority to express their views without being punished. The people who are enjoying these rights have no empathy for what the people in Islamic countries are suffering from there. To me, it is arrogant when some people suggest that this is maybe because these are our values but not theirs.
Morally Superior
Because of this, they claim moral superiority for following these values. That people who follow such humanist values are going to enjoy life more, and live a life with more peace and more happiness. Since we are claiming superiority for this, we think we are deserving of these values and other people are not.
Other people might never be able to see that these values are good for them because they weren’t always in the situation where they had these values. Later on, they progressed to adopt these values, but people are denying them on the same grounds. They might say, “We came to these values ourselves. They should do the same thing.” I call bullshit. There is no country, no idea, and no value that has not been influenced by other countries, by other values, by philosophers and thought leaders from different corners of the world. Europe was introduced to its own ancient values through the Arab Empire. If it wasn’t because of the Arab Empire, we would not know how much of those ancient values would have come back from Greek philosophers. They were influenced by foreign countries, foreign philosophers, and foreign thought.
No group of people or country lives in a bubble. Of course, they are going to be influenced by foreign countries. They are going to influence other countries. They are going to be influenced by other countries. There is no way a country could progress in a bubble. They need outside influence as we need outside influence. The world is connected. If that was true a thousand years ago, it is more true today because we are more connected today. If European countries want an enlightenment, because of the influence of foreign countries at that time, are you going to deny foreign influence to these countries today since we are even more connected now?
Moral and Pleasure Matrix
I will say to people who do not agree with these values, to bring on your values and sell your values to these people, but do not deny us the opportunity to come and introduce these values to people that might want them. Compete with us in the market of ideas, compete with us and tell us why your values are better; however, that is not what you are doing. You are telling us, we are not in a position to judge, so we should shut the fuck up. That is the position you are taking. I am saying, if you think our ideas are wrong, bring up better ideas, but do not deny these people the opportunity to choose their ideas. Ideas that we think are better.
If you think we are wrong, introduce them to more ideas, not fewer ideas. That is how you compete with our ideas. That is how you respond to a bad idea. That is how we respond to your shitty backwards barbaric ancient ideas. We do not silence you. We compete with you. If you think our ideas are imperialist, foreign, too liberal, too free, too empty of spiritual guidance, too empty of meaning, too empty of providing purpose to people, then I am sure. If your ideas are better, they are going to do good.
Exploiting Evolution You should bring your ideas to the public and compete with us. Do not deny the people, who might prefer our values, the opportunity to hear us because you think somebody might take advantage of these ideas for their agenda. Because if that is your argument, then we should stop teaching evolution in Western countries. Because it was not that long ago, when the Nazis took advantage of the evolution of science to sell their agenda and to tell people why we need to stop letting some races spread, some races should be superior. The whole genocide of the Jews. All those gas chambers and crimes were committed by the Nazi Regime. They were based on the truth, based on the misuse of an actual true scientific principle, which is evolution.
If you are looking at how people could misuse something, we should stop teaching evolution in Western countries because we have a history. In fact, you should try to suggest a value to me. I could come up with a way that it could be misused. Misuse of Human Rights
In fact, if you are worried about the fact that we are talking about human rights being misused by the military/industrial complex to bring war to these countries, why are you not equally concerned about the Islamic values that have been used, time and time again, in history, for killing, for war, for torturing people, and for denying people’s rights? We have more examples of Islamic values being used to do the same thing. Based on the argument, we should deny Muslims the opportunities to spread their ideology because of the history and examples that came from the misuse of it.
You cannot stop telling the truth because of somebody being able to misuse it. Because if you do that, then you cannot say anything. Everybody should stay home and shut the fuck up.
The only way that you could fight the misuse of good ideas is to expose them as misuse of good ideas. Because if you do not compete bad ideas with better ideas, those bad ideas are more easily used, more easily misused, than good ideas. If your values are better values, then any misuse of it is a misrepresentation and is another inferior value that you should fight for rather than it. When we say these values are superior and you say, “Well, who are you to say?” You could still say that about any claim. I could say, “Who are you to say? Who am I to say?” Let us say your claim is we should not interfere in other people’s countries, who are you to say we should not interfere in other people’s countries?
Challenge Your Ideas
The point of bringing your ideas out there is to challenge them. If you go around the argument and look at the person who is making the argument and you think that they do not deserve to make such argument, then you are making a judgement about the person, whether or not they are deserving to make an argument. Now, you are in that position where we can ask the same from you: who are you to deny this person making the argument?
Another thing is when people say, “Oh, Christianity is the same. It is as bad here. Look at the people. Look at how many police are killing black people or look how Christianity is also barbaric. Ancient ideology that could be as harmful.”
To that, I say, “Fuck you.” I am not talking about those things. I am talking about something else. An example: Imagine if you have a fundraiser for cancer. You are trying to raise money to fund research for cancer. You want to fight cancer, and then people come in and start shouting. They say, “What about AIDS? Why are you not talking about AIDS? AIDS is a disease too. AIDS is also killing people. You guys do not care about AIDS!” What would I do? I would probably kick these people out. AIDS is bad. Yes! However, we are talking about cancer because we are talking about the problems of cancer. That does not mean we are denying that AIDS is also a problem.
However, you are not helping by shifting the discussion to something that this fundraiser is not fighting for now. You are not helping, and fuck you for making everything about you. Because what you are doing is you are taking part in the Oppression Olympics. You think that if the conversation is not about the things that attacks your people or the things that have affected your life, then it is not worth talking about now. If you have been hurt by Christianity or by racism in the US, then when we come and say, “Islam is hurting people,” you are saying, “No, let us pay attention to this.” That makes you self-centered because you cannot stand it when other people are talking about being victims of something else other than what concerns you. You cannot stand people who are bringing awareness to something that you or the people around you are not victims of. If that is the case, then you are selfish and arrogant. However, some people might say this cancer and AIDS example does not make sense because Islam and Christianity have the same root.
Religion As A Whole
This is why we always want to say that we should not talk about Islam. Talk about religion as a whole. Okay, let me add to my example. Let us say we had a fundraiser about pancreatic cancer and then somebody came and said, “Skin cancer is a problem too. Why are you not talking about skin cancer?” Is that close enough for you?
Sometimes, it makes sense to focus on a specific problem, even if it has similarities with other problems. Different problems manifest themselves in different ways. They harm people in different ways. They have different answers.
It makes sense to focus on a certain problem. Sometimes, it makes sense to look at it as a whole. However, it does not make sense when you always try to shift the attention to a different category when we are focusing on another one. It does not make sense because you are not helping. We are having a discussion about a certain topic and all you are doing is coming and saying, “pay attention to the problem that I care about.” That is what you are doing.
Better Than Most
The obsession for a certain issue might be for different reasons. It could be because you were hurt. It might be because you know more about a particular topic. It might be simply because you care more about a certain issue. Who cares? At least, you are talking about a problem, which makes you better than most people.
For example, if somebody is going out there and rescuing dogs, I am not going to tell them, “What the fuck do you have against cats? Why are you not rescuing cats? Are other animals not good enough for you? Do they not deserve saving?”
This person maybe cares about dogs. Maybe, he is passionate about dogs. However, the fact that he is rescuing dogs. He might be doing more than most people. Do you know what you say to somebody who is going out there and rescuing dogs? You say, “Thank you.” That is what you say to that person.
For example, let us say somebody says to me, “Why are you focused on Islam? Why not all religions?” I tell them, “Why are you so focused on other religions? Why not all dogma?” They might say, “Okay, all dogma.”
I am like, “Why are you focusing on all dogma? Why are you not focusing on all bad ideas? Does a bad idea have to be a dogma for you to focus on it?” Then they go, “Okay, all bad ideas.” I am like, “Bad ideas? What about other bad things? Does something have to be an idea for you to attack it? Diseases are not ideas. Why are you focusing on bad ideas?”
“Alright, so let us be more general, bad things are bad. Good things are good. Is that general enough for you? Is that good? How helpful is that? How helpful of a claim that is… bad things are bad?” You cannot get more general than that. General Activism
Some people prefer to look at it more generally. Others might want to look at it more focused in a more specific situation. For example, there is a certain village in the Philippines, where the people need help now. This person wants to specifically focus on this group of people. People who do not have access to water. It is focused. Nobody will go to this person and be like, “Why are you focusing on that specific village?” That is incredibly focused, but I am sure most people will say, “Congratulations, that is good. Thank you for helping these people.”
But when it comes to Islam, many people, atheists especially, say, “Why are you focusing on Islam?” I do not think it is because their problem is that you are being too focused. I think they feel a certain amount of bigotry if you are focused on Islam because they do not say that about any other form of activism if it is focused on anything.
Have you ever heard anybody say that about any other form of activism? It looks ridiculous. Let us say somebody is focusing on the environment in Iran. Nobody comes to him and says, “Why do you not care about the environment in Iraq?” Pushed Back for Bigotry
Every form of activism gets this bigotry pushback. However, this specific claim that you are being too focused is either regarding Islam or nationalism. For example, if Americans are focusing on other countries, they might get accused on why are you not focusing on problems at home.
I know a lot of people who are nationalistic and anti-globalist do not like this. However, I do not understand it. Why do we have to care about a certain group of people because they happened to be born on this side of the border instead of on the other side of the border? Is that good criteria for us to start caring about somebody? Why is that? What makes this so special? With this line in the sand, all of the sudden the person that is born on this side of it matters more?
Western Values
Another thing, I want to address Western values. The name: “Western values.” The reason why it is called Western values is because it first happened in Western countries. The fact that these values were adopted more in Western countries is a historical accident. Because they are named, “Western values,” now, that does not mean that the West should own these values. The West does not own women’s rights. The West does not own human rights. The West does not have a monopoly over not discriminating against gay people. The West does not have a monopoly on secularism. The West does not have ownership over freedom of speech.
The fact people are accusing us of bigotry because we are suggesting that these values should be global and introduced globally, you are being the bigots. You are claiming ownership over some values because you happened to historically come across it — before the rest of the world. You are the people unwilling to share. You think that this is good for you, but it is not good for other people. Why is it not good for other people? What makes them so different from us that it works for you but not for them?
Western Superiority
You are the people claiming superiority. What is it about values that make somebody claim ownership over them? Why can we not introduce these values? Why can we not promote these values? It has been introduced, but we could promote it even more. Why can we not promote them? Could somebody use it to attack these countries? Reality check: somebody is using other values to oppress women.
If we go back to arguments people use when you are talking about Muslims and Islamic ideology, you are not looking at the main threat in the world. You are not looking at the main powers at play, at the destruction and the harm that they cause.
You have to see who is in control and not look at these minority Muslims in our Western countries. You have to make the difference where it matters the most now. Those are the ideas. The values that are being used to oppress people in foreign countries and in their countries by these major superpowers in the West.
I tell them that is a narrow way of looking at it because where I come from Islam is in power. You are underestimating Islam as a major superpower when you think about it that way. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam is going to become the number one main ideology in the world soon.
Islam Colonization
Islam is dominating not lands but minds. Islam is used to rule over people and to oppress people. Islam has been used to colonize people. Do you think white people are the only people that can colonize?
Islam has been used for colonization way before the British discovered what that even means and that it is even an option. It is okay if it happens voluntarily. If people are adopting other people’s cultures or ideas or values voluntarily, that is not colonizing them. We are asking for these other values and ideas to be heard and considered rather than suppressed or silenced.
We asking for a seat at the table, at every table. I am not talking about a seat at a table talking about humanism and secularism in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Canada, or in France. I am talking about a seat at a table in Iran, in Bangladesh, in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Pakistan.
We demand a seat at a table. We are going to get it. if you think that that is us imposing our values on other people, fuck you. Because you are enjoying the benefits of these values, somebody at some point in your history was told that these values are not for your country. They did not stay silent. They sacrificed their lives. They sacrificed their safety. They sacrificed their comfort for you to enjoy that today. People are doing these things in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, and in Bangladesh. They are suffering for it.
Moral Cowardice
You are a moral coward for thinking that it is morally wrong for us to voice our feelings on the killing of secular bloggers in Bangladesh. Do you think it is not right for us to judge? Do you think you are not in a position to judge? To judge whether women having less inheritance rights in government, as a witness in court, on what they wear, where they go, what jobs they get, who they talk to, do you think that you are not in a position to make a moral judgment on that? That makes you a moral coward.
But what is moral or not? If you are making that judgement based on how different sets of actions influence people’s well-being, then there is always a right answer and a wrong answer. There are many good answers and many bad answers. It does not take a genius to see that hanging gay people is not good for the well-being of the society. If you think that you are not in a position to make a moral judgment for other countries, I want you to tell me what you would say to the person that is about to be hanged because they are gay.
Go ahead and tell that to that person right before they are being hanged, say, “This is not that bad. In my country it is bad, but here, this is your culture, so shame on you for being gay. If you were in the United Kingdom, I would be marching for gay pride and being gay and proud, but here it is a different country. So, fuck you, fuck your gay ass, you deserve being hanged here.” For The People in Islamic Countries
All the people who are in jail in Iran or Saudi Arabia; all the bloggers who died trying to spread secularism and humanism; all the people in Malaysia who after the government came out and said that they need to hunt down atheists; on behalf of those people, all the people that were burned or tortured for accusations of desecrating the Quran in Pakistan; on behalf of all those people, I want to say, “Fuck you to whoever says that it is their culture and who are we to judge and ask, ‘What’s right for them?’” On behalf of every woman that suffered from Islam; on behalf of every homosexual person that suffered in Islam; and on behalf of anybody that dares speak against Islam and paid the consequences for it, I want to say, “Fuck you” to whoever says, “Who are we to judge?”
Enlightenment for All
The Western countries went through the Enlightenment. Now we want this for other countries as well. We want the same enlightenment values. We want to fight for those values. If you are arrogant enough to want to deny the rest of us the same process, if you are not going to help, then stay out of our way. It is interesting a lot of people come and tell me, “Armin, why are you saying these things? That is our country. It has nothing to do with our country. That is Iran.” I almost, almost want to say, “Mother fuckers, I am from Iran.” However, I do not think that is even relevant because I think you should not need to be from there for you to care about them.
Situation in Yemen
Who do I care more about right now than even the people in Iran? I care more about the people in Yemen. If I could speak Arabic, I would have been tweeting more about the situation that is happening in Yemen because they are suffering more than the people in Iran. The fact that you think we have to be from there to care about them makes no sense to me. However, if you think that, and if you do not want to be part of the solution, and if you do not want to lend a voice to people that need you to lend them a voice, the people that are voiceless. The people that cannot speak for themselves.
If you are not going to use your platform to help them, then stay out of our way because we are going to keep doing that. We are going to keep doing that. It does not matter how many times you call us a bigot. We are going to keep fighting for those people.
If you think they need to do it themselves, then fuck you again because it would be much faster and much easier if we could help them out. Because we enjoy the freedom of speech here. We enjoy some security. We could bring more attention to their problems, to their suffering. We could help. We could help. They need our help. They are asking for our help. For you to deny that to them because you think they do not deserve it, it is selfish. It is selfish to judge your life by a different standard than what you are judging their lives by.
So, who are we to judge how people in Islamic countries live? To that I say, “That is the wrong question. The right question is, “Who do you have to be to remain silent?” The answer to that is, “You have to be a monster.” You have to be a monster to have seen such crimes being done against your fellow human beings and judge it by a different standard than what you would have done if it was happening in your own backyard.
MN: I became an activist as a result of my own life experiences after an Islamic regime took power in Iran. We fled the country. One of the first ways in which I got politically involved was in doing refugee rights work. My family and so many we knew had become refugees and it was a way of dealing with the trauma of losing everything and starting all over again – somewhere completely new – and at times unwelcoming.
It followed too, that I would be active against theocracy and religious rules, and for people’s rights. The best way you can fight repression is to refuse and resist. I didn’t set out to be an activist; in many ways I was forced into it. I had no choice but to fight back in the best way I knew how. Also when you are faced with such inhumanity – like the Islamic regime of Iran – the best fight back has to be fundamentally human.
SDJ: Was there support from parents, siblings, or others for you?
MN: My family has always been supportive of me. That’s why it has been easy for me to be an activist. Also, my partner is an activist. I’ve really always had a lot of support.
I can’t imagine people who not only don’t have the support of their families, but are being beaten and abused because of their beliefs. I think it makes it so much more difficult. Doesn’t it? It still astonishes me people like that can still be active and speak out.
I have met a lot of very vocal women. Many of them say they’ve had supportive parents and fathers. I think that’s key when you’re an activist. Obviously, you can be vocal without family support, but it helps a great deal.
SDJ: Speaking of human rights as well as women rights, which are somewhat separated but definitely overlap, do you note that more of the rights violations are women’s in general?
MN: Obviously, I think rights are violated across the board, but because women are seen to be more vulnerable, they are seen to be the property of the community, the society, the family’s honor, the society’s national honour, it makes it easier to target them. And often the abuse is legitimised in ways that other abuses aren’t.
As a result, violence against women is more acceptable in many ways. In that sense, one of the greatest violations of human rights is in the area of women’s rights.
SDJ: Some of the more tragic and dramatic examples are violations of women’s bodies through things such as tens of millions of women having female genital mutilation, infibulation, clitoridectomy, and so on, against their will, even as girls. Does that seem, along with others, more religiously motivated or not?
MN: I think there are obviously non-religious motivations for those violations, but very often religion also justifies and legitimises it, and gives it divine sanction in ways that other justifications don’t – which makes it all the more dangerous.
SDJ: You are working on a new film. What is the content and purpose of that film?
MN: The film is on Islam’s non-believers. It’s been made by Deeyah Khan, who is an award-winning film maker. Her previous films have been about honor killing as well as Jihadis.
And this one is about Islam’s non-believers. It looks at the situation of young people, particularly in Britain, who are facing discrimination and abuse because they’ve decided to be atheists. Often, including from their families and the larger communities that they live in. The film also links to the international situation.
It also shows the ex-Muslim resistance as an international movement and how it too is an important way of pushing back the Islamists by opening up the space to question and debate, and criticise religion, even to renounce religion. The ability to do it despite the risks involved.
SDJ: The American Massachusetts Institute of Technology trained and Tufts University based philosopher and cognitive scientist professor, Daniel Dennett, did something similar to that. He looked into pastors, ministers, and preachers who had lost their faith and continued to preach. There’s a decent amount who’ve lost their faith and continued to preach. I haven’t seen the precise results, but this seems like a similar case. A possibly relatively common phenomena of people putting on the ‘face’ such as the engaging in practices and wearing the clothing in public, but not holding the beliefs sincerely or simply not believing. Do you know of the numbers of non-believers in Islam, but are putting on that face – so to speak?
MN: Yea, also, there are 13 countries that execute apostates and atheists. There’s also a huge amount of threats and intimidation. The numbers are much larger than we can imagine because of the many risks involved. Social media and the internet are doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity.
So, it is opening the way to challenge it in a way that hasn’t been possible because of the risks that are involved. My opinion is its a tsunami of millions. It really is the case that there are atheists in every family, in every home, in every neighbourhood, in every country.
There are many of them. We can see it now via social media. What we see, though, is still the tip of the iceberg. We have many members living in Britain, which is a relatively safe place to live. There are no apostasy rules, but people continue to wear the veil, go to mosque, and continue to say they’re Muslims when they are atheists.
I think if the pressure of the Islamist movement is removed, if that movement is pushed back in the way political Christianity was pushed back by an Enlightenment, the world will be surprised by the sheer number of non-believers. I think even we will be surprised by it.
SDJ: On the fringe of that sector of people, that sub-population within the community will be those that simply had over time their fundamentalist beliefs softened and liberalised quite a bit. Do you think that would be a much larger population – that sector would then move into non-believing as well?
MN: Definitely, I think that is the case. I mean, of course, no community or society is homogenous. There are so many differences of opinion. The problem is we live in an era where communities are homogenised.
Very often, those in power are seen to be the representatives of those communities. In the so-called Muslim community, Islamists are seen as the authentic Muslims and representatives. I think many people are forced to keep up appearances, even if they don’t believe.
Time will reveal all, but already we’re seeing the extent of it. If anyone is interested in seeing it, is interested in accepting that there’s diversity and dissent in what is considered a homogenous group, it is very easy to see.
And it is on the increase. A convert was telling me that the Islamists always talk about how many people are converting into Islam, but we never hear about many of those converts who then decide to leave Islam and to become atheists.
We hear it is the fastest growing religion. We never hear about all of those people running for their lives in the opposite direction.
(Laugh)
Things are skewed in the favour of religion because religion is privileged anyway. No matter what society you live in. But when it is imposed, very often by brute force, by the Islamist movement, the numbers can never really be revealed.
But you can get a really good sense of it. When we started #ExMuslimBecause, we were expecting to have a couple of hundred people respond. We even thought, “Let’s do it a few weeks in advance of December 10th, International Human Rights Day, so, we can build up on it and gather a few hundred statements.”
It went viral in 24 hours. There were over 120,000 tweets from 65 different countries. Again, that is still the tip of the iceberg, really.
SDJ: At this point in time, how do you self-identify in terms of irreligious/religious beliefs as well as socio-political beliefs?
MN: I have a big problem with identity politics. I think it’s regressive as it tries to pigeonhole people into groups of constructed identities. It refuses to acknowledge that people are multifaceted. They have so many different characteristics that define them or they define themselves with.
For me, even the whole ex-Muslim movement is not about identity politics, I know it is for some people, but it is about a political challenge to the Islamist movement, to discrimination and violence against apostates, and it is one way of highlighting that.
It also challenges the view that the “Muslim community” is a homogenous community. If you have ex-Muslims, millions of people who don’t want to be considered Muslim anymore, it challenges multiculturalism as a social policy. I personally have political positions and ideals, which, for me, mark who I stand with irrespective of background or belief.
I am a secularist, for example. I will stand with Muslims and ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims, in support of secularism. I might be an atheist, but I don’t necessarily agree with all atheists on all issues. I am pro-refugee rights and against profiling of Muslims, for example.
I am old-fashioned in the sense that I think we need to build solidarity around political ideals, rather than around ridiculous limiting identities, which narrow the allies we can have and put us amongst those who aren’t necessarily our allies because they fit within a narrow identity.
Unfortunately, this is old-fashioned, but that’s how political organising has always been done. It has been done irrespective of one’s background, beliefs, and identity around specific political ideals.
I think that’s why we’re in the mess we are in today because we are not able to see our allies and our enemies given the bogus identity politics.
SDJ: I want to shift the conversation to some of the things you mentioned at the beginning about refugees. In the early 21st century, we have a singular tragedy with the Syrian refugee crisis. How do you think countries in Europe are managing and handling refugees as well as the crisis at large?
MN: For me, the refugee issue is a human rights issue – in the same way that I don’t think you should stop people using a hospital because they are undocumented and an EU citizen rather than a British born citizen or exclude people based on age, sex, race, or belief, I don’t think you should stop people from gaining protection.
It doesn’t matter where you fled from and where you seek refuge, you must be granted protection. It’s a basic human right.
People who have never had to worry about getting visas or fleeing for their lives might find it hard to understand the desperation – to have to leave everything you know – the language, the society, your work, your family, your loved ones, sometimes even sending your children on their own (unaccompanied minors) because you have no other hope of saving them. You send them off on this perilous journey and don’t even know if they will make it alive.
From my perspective, we should do everything and anything we can to help people. In the same way, I think everyone who needs healthcare should have it. Everyone who needs housing should have it. I don’t understand why we should have homeless people. I don’t understand why there are children who go to bed hungry in this country. I also don’t understand why refugees shouldn’t be given protection and safety.
I know of course it is because profit is more important than human need, and differences amongst us are more deemed more important than our common humanity but I don’t see why it should be that way.
Also, rights are not contingent on whether you like or agree with those demanding it. Sometimes the refugee issue is muddled up because people want to run an inquisition before deciding whether someone is eligible for this right. My perspective is that even if a person’s views are disgusting and vile, they still have human rights. You can’t stop people from accessing a GP because you don’t like their beliefs, so why do you think you can do it when it comes to those trying to save their lives and fleeing wars and persecution? Also beliefs are not set in stone. They change all the time.
People have a right to an education. They have a right to food. They have a right to healthcare. I would also say they have a right to asylum. I know we’re living in a time when this is unfashionable to say. With Brexit, so many hate anyone who doesn’t look like them. They want everybody out. Even if they’re doctors who are saving your life, they are still not good enough, not white enough, or what have you.
I think this boils down to a very fundamental issue. Rights are for everyone not just your pals. And there is more that hold us together than separate us if only we could see beyond the propaganda.
SDJ: We are seeing some concerns from many people being raised both in North America, Europe, and elsewhere with, the phrase being used is, “right wing nationalism,” which can sometimes be seen as ethnic nationalism in a way. What do you think is the state of that at this point in time? What are the possible major concerns associated with that?
MN: I think this is what happens when identity politics rules.
Identity politics divides and separates people so that they can no longer see their commonalities across these false borders. It’s not just that minorities love to live in ghettos and be humiliated day-in and day-out. This ghettoization is part and parcel of government policies of multiculturalism and cultural relativism. It means that governments can manage their minorities on the cheap by outsourcing citizens to self-appointed community “leaders” and Sharia courts, Islamic schools and so on.
When identity politics is supreme, it makes it possible for white identity politics to be portrayed as a legitimate option.
It surprises me how many people justify and legitimise what is fundamentally white identity politics, white supremacist politics, because the fascists and bigots happen to be critical of Islam. Look, the Islamists are also critical of US militarism but that doesn’t mean I should be siding with them. You can oppose both. This is a trap, though, the so-called “Regressive Left” fall into. But so do those who use the term “Regressive Left” in every other sentence but consider it a “smear” to call out those feeding into the far-Right narrative. Like the atheists and secularists who fall into the trap of defending Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer because they have “some legitimate views.” Well, I’m sure if you sit down and have a chat with al-Baghdadi, he will have “some legitimate views.” Assad or Khamenei might too; they might think that roads should be paved.
But that’s not a reason to ally with them or to justify their politics. I think this is a huge problem. You have people saying, “Well, the Far Right is dealing with the Islamists, therefore, let’s deal with them with kid gloves.” I think that’s a mistake. If you look at them (I always get shit for saying this but people don’t understand what I’m saying) fundamentally they are similar to the Islamists. Islamism is a far-Right movement.
Of course, I’m not saying Tommy Robinson decapitates people, but movements can be fundamentally similar yet based on the amount of power or access to power they have, they might not necessarily be able to wreck the same havoc as one that has state power and backing.
Fundamentally, though, their politics is one of hate, placing collective blame, regression. It’s unfortunate that so many people who consider themselves freethinkers would side with them.
SDJ: You mentioned Sharia courts as well as Islamic schools. I know this is a bit of an issue in the United Kingdom. For instance, private religious schools for youngsters, for kids. Kids are told things that at times are outright wrong, especially even facts and fundamental theories, principles, and laws about the natural world. For instance, creationism over evolutionary theory and so on. What are your own personal concerns with some of these institutions and the way they being implemented within the United Kingdom?
MN: I think “faith schools” is an oxymoron. Schools and faith don’t go together. Unless, you’re talking about indoctrination. I know there are some Church of England schools that are not indoctrinating the way Islamic schools are. They used to do it and still they promote ideas that are antithetical to free thinking and education. I think, in a sense, the educational system is one of the only ways in which we can protect children from their families.
It is meant to be a way in which the playing field is levelled for all kids irrespective of background. You’re rich. You’re poor. Your family beats you. Your family tries to veil you. Schools should be a place where you’re safeguarded.
You get to hear different ideas. You get the protection you might not get at home. You get to be equal to other kids. Faith schools are antithetical to this. If you question, you are punished. If you raise dissent or you don’t agree, or you ask how certain religious edicts could possibly be true, you’re penalised for it.
Education should promote and encourage questioning, inquiry, and free thought. It makes no sense to have religious schools. It’s a prescription for disaster. We’re faced with that disaster today. I can’t understand how it’s ever seen to be good idea.
Historically religion was in charge of education; faith schools are a remnant of the time when religion played a central role in the state and society. And of course even today, religion holds a privileged place in society. The British government, for example, is not a secular state by any means. This is a state in which the Church of England has real power. They’ve got bishops in the House of Lords. The Queen is the head of the church. You’ve got prayers in Parliament.
When speaking about faith schools (even the term seems innocuous, though it’s so sinister), it is not enough to address non-discrimination in admission policies or hiring practices but about why it is bad for our children. Fundamentally, there shouldn’t be any faith schools whatsoever, whether it’s stated funded or private.
SDJ: What about Sharia courts existing alongside mainstream court systems?
MN: I can’t understand that either. If you look at Sharia courts in Britain, they are dealing only in family matters, e.g. divorce, child custody, domestic violence, and so on and so forth. Family matters are not trivial matters as it’s often portrayed.
They are not matters of the community. They are human rights issues. In many countries, where Sharia rules apply, this is one of the main areas of fight back by women’s rights campaigners because of the huge amounts of discrimination against women.
For it to be sold to us here as a choice and a right is like selling FGM as a choice and right. The courts hold women’s testimony to be half that of a man’s. Women don’t have unilateral right to divorce. Men do.
The rules are discriminatory and legitimise violence against women. For example, you’ve got one Sharia judge saying that there’s no such thing as marital rape because women should expect to have sex within marriage. And that calling it rape is the act of aggression and not the actual rape. Or they have said if only we’ve had one amputation or stoning in Britain, there would be fewer thieves and less adultery, look how great Saudi Arabia is. These are the judges making rulings in these courts and making decisions on women’s lives. They’ve been recorded saying, “You’ve been beaten by your husband. Have you asked why he’s beating you? Is it because of your cooking? Is it because of you going out with your friends?”
It is outrageous. It is a scandal that they should be allowed. I think one of the things we’re seeing is not only are the rules discriminatory, but the process itself is tantamount to abuse. That is the argument women’s rights groups are making. No matter what a woman’s background, a man’s background, or a child’s background, they are citizens first and foremost. They have rights. To relegate minority women to kangaroo courts, that are violating their rights should be considered a human rights scandal.
SDJ: In international studies done by UN organs, or bodies, one of the major, probably the best, ways of improving the wellbeing and livelihood of an entire society, from economics to child and maternal mortality rates (reduction) in addition to increasing access and achievements in education, is under the guise of the empowerment of women. When individuals such as others and yourself are campaigning and fighting for women’s rights, and looking for ways, politically and otherwise, to empower women, it is actually improving the lives, on average, of everyone in the region or the society. What do you think should be or is the best means through which to implement women’s rights in cases that are very difficult? Where women have less of a vote or no vote, they have a lot of pressure not to speak up for their own rights.
MN: I think one of the key ways, of course, is defending secularism. One of the problems is that secularism has become a dirty word. We hear how secular extremists are compared with religious extremists. I’m sorry. No. There’s absolutely no comparison.
The French government saying there should be no conspicuous religious symbols in schools is actually a protection of school children. Why should a child be veiled because their parents are Muslims?
Don’t we agree that children have the right to decide their political leaning and positions when they reach of age, why not also their beliefs? Why is it okay for religion to be imposed?
In that sense, compare that with acid being thrown in your face for going to school, compare that with compulsory veiling from the age of puberty, compare that with gender segregation, there’s absolutely no comparison between what a secular state wants and what a theocracy wants.
We should unashamedly, unconditionally promote secularism. It is one the main preconditions for women’s empowerment and rights. I think particularly when religion has any say in the state or law it is detrimental to women’s rights.
That is one precondition. Equality before the law is key, but equality on a social and economic level are also key. That comes down to a system that puts profit before human need and human welfare. Religion is useful for that system as well.
It helps to keep women down.
SDJ: Who are some personal heroes for you?
MN: My parents are my personal heroes because the more I actually see how many young people have been abused and destroyed by their parents, it does make me realise how lucky I am to have the father that I have and my mum as well.
Also, the person who most has affected the way I think is the Iranian Marxist Mansoor Hekmat. Unfortunately, he died at 51, but his politics which centred on the human being has influenced my politics and the politics of many from Iran, the region, and Diaspora.
SDJ: Do you have any recommended novels or more academic writings for people with an interest in or leaning in getting involved in these issues?
MN: There is Mansoor Hekmat’s Collected Works of which there is one translated into English. I would recommend that to anyone who wants to know more about Iranian politics but also about how to address everything from Islam, Islamism, veiling, secularism from a fundamentally human and Left perspective. Anything written by Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas is a great read. There are two interviews with her on the veil and gender segregation, which are brilliant. I’d recommend reading Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis for a view of the Iranian revolution (which was not Islamic) and its expropriation by the Islamist movement; Mona Eltahawy’s Headscarves and Hymens on the veil as well as Karima Bennoune’s You Fatwa Does Not Apply Here on people’s resistance against Islamism. Elham Manea’s Women and Sharia Law is also a really good book on legal pluralism in the UK.
SDJ: For getting in contact with you, people can go to your Twitter and website.
MN: I have a really good website now thanks to a really wonderful volunteer. My website was hideous before. It was embarrassing to refer people to it. It is http://www.maryamnamazie.com. Via the website, people can read things I’ve written, see videos, and media coverage.
Also, there’s a TV program that is broadcast in Iran, which I do weekly with a co-host of mine. It is called Bread and Roses. It is Persian and English. It uses illegal satellite dishes to get into Iran. Many people have satellite dishes in Iran.
It just deals with free thinking, taboo breaking issues. There’s always an interview. We’ve interviewed some of the greats as well as people who should be considered great by all free thinkers, but aren’t as well known, unfortunately.
One of the things the program shows is that there’s so many atheists, secularists, and free thinkers in the so-called Muslim world. I mean, it is important to see them, recognise them, because once we do it breaks this whole idea that dissent and free thought are Western concepts, which is nonsense.
That, in fact, there are lots of people fighting for the very same issues that people fight for here it home in Britain.
SDJ: Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion about the things we’ve discussed?
MN: Sometimes, when we’re having these discussions, people only see homogenous groups; they make decisions based on group identity. But group identity is very often imposed. It fails to recognise that there are so many individuals within those groups who are individuals, courageous and are resisting in many different ways – often at great risk to themselves.
If we can start seeing each other as people and recognising that there is a lot more which brings us together than separates us, I think we would have a real chance of pushing the Islamist and far-Right back.
One of the reasons that the Islamists are so violent is because they see this immense dissent. Unfortunately, it is not recognised in the West because it is either Islamophobic to criticise or you’ve got the Far-Right trying to hijack the criticism in order to scapegoat and vilify Muslims and migrants and push forward their own white identity politics.
It is important for us to go back to basics of universal rights, citizenship, secularism, and join hands together around political ideals and not identities. It is this united solidarity as human beings that has helped us overcome inhumanity in the past and can also help us today.
From Atheist RepublicScott Jacobsen interviews Armin Navabi, Founder of Atheist Republic.
I recently spoke with Armin Navabi, a former Muslim from Iran and the founder of Atheist Republic, an organization with millions of followers worldwide and best-selling author of Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God. We talk about his opinion on the topic Islam versus Nazism, the reason why both can’t be compared, and his message to Muslims.
Scott: Why can’t people compare Islam and Nazism, according to them, and why do you think they’re wrong?
Armin: Their argument is at a time when you have the rise of the alt-right in the West, when people are discriminating against Muslims, when people who look like Muslims are being targeted and harassed in the streets. Comparing Islam to Nazism is not helpful and fueling hate. It’s helping more people demonize Muslims.
Scott: In my opinion, empowering the wrong people is a bad idea, such as the ethnic nationalists and the people that are neo-fascists. Islam is not people but a set of ideas — or more precisely a set of ideas plus suggested practices in which people practice in certain degrees and believed in certain degrees. What I think is you can make a comparison if you’re talking about ideas plus suggested practices in a similar way National Socialism or Nazism does have a set of ideas and likely suggested practices.
I suspect that the inclination behind a lot of people are saying is looking at not only a set of ideas as neutral but a set of ideas as bad and then making comparison as both ideas are bad. You can’t compare two ideas that are bad.
When people want to protect those who believe Islam but not those who believe in Nazism, they don’t want to make a comparison in what they want to protect and in what they consider a bad set of ideas, ordinary Muslims and Nazis respectively. However, if you do look at the ideologies and suggested practices, you can make comparisons.
The question that follows from that comparison is, “What is the judgment? What is the ultimate value of either particular claims and the ideologies at large”?
For Armin, the judgment is already there when you compare Islam and Nazism because when you compare two things, you are suggesting that they are the same.
Armin: My response to that is something that would make them hate me more, which is [that] I don’t think Islam is as bad as Nazism. I think Islam is worse than Nazism. They think, “Okay great job, Armin, you just gave the best narrative to the alt-right and white supremacists. You just said that Muslims are worse than Nazis”. I never mentioned Muslims, never mentioned Nazis. I said Islam. You should know that as this is coming from people who criticize Islam and they say we’re criticizing Islam, not Muslims. And when I say Islam is worse than Nazism, they’re suggesting I’m demonizing Muslims, which I’m not. They will say “you’re simplifying it”. To that I respond, You’re only listening to my conclusion instead of my entire argument.
Scott: How could you say Islam is worse than Nazism?
Armin: First of all they tell me “you can’t even compare them since they’re apples and oranges. They’re not in the same category.” To that I respond, they’re both ideologies. When I compare Christianity with Islam, nobody says anything. When I compare Communism with Nazism, nobody says anything. But when I compare Islam with Nazism, everybody loses their mind.
To be fair, I think most Nazis are way worse than most Muslims. Most Muslims are great people. And this is the problem with Islam. The problem with Islam is that it does better job taking advantage of good people to sell its evil. Nazism doesn’t have the sugarcoating required for you to take advantage of enough good people for it to spread enough.
Religions like Islam and Christianity are destructive, but they also come with these sweet messages like “Love thy neighbor”, “Take care of the poor”, “Be kind to your parents”, “Take care of the elderly”. Stuff that people already did and would have done without religion.
In fact, these simplistic morality messages within these religions were already discussed in way more advanced and nuanced way by ancient philosophers thousands of years ago before the Bible and the Quran.
So it wasn’t their invention and people would have come to this conclusion because people in general are nice. On average, people are more sympathetic to their other fellow human beings. But the Bible and Quran take the credit for this. And by taking credit for it they have an easier job to spread.
If you have an ideology talking about how you are the superior race and how Jews are evil and how everybody else is disgusting, if that’s your main message, it’s really hard for you to sell this and spread it because you have to rely on certain kind of people to spread this.
For example:
If I have a poison pill that tastes like shit and kills you right away, it’s really hard to spread this poison. But if I have a poison pill that is sugar coated and doesn’t kill you right away, then it’s easier for me to start selling this poison and spread it far and wide.
I think that’s the genius of Christianity and Islam. It’s not genius by design; it’s genius because these are memes that survive, just like we have the natural selection for genes. It’s the ideologies that can survive longer spread farther and infect more people.
Scott: How can you say that Islam is even close to what Nazis did?
Armin: Granted, Nazism is way more harmful per year in power. By harmful I mean has more victims. Per year in power, Nazism is way more harmful. But, Nazism cannot survive for long in power. It was in power as a government only in less than one generation. It’s not fully defeated but how many Nazi regimes do we have right now? Zero. How many Islamic regimes do we have right now? More than zero. Islamic regimes last longer. They had victims for the past 1400 years and still have victims today.
People tell me, “How can you say this right after what happened in Charlottesville? You have to adjust what you’re saying and take the political climate into consideration and adjust accordingly for you not to fuel hate.”
And I tell these people, “You’re being very selfish because you’re only looking at the political climate around where you live.”
That woman dying in Charlottesville was an absolute tragedy, but you have to understand while that one person died in the hands of Nazis, there are hundreds of people dying in Yemen because of the religiously-fueled Sunni-Shia-divided Yemen.
I hate Islam because I care about its victims which are mostly Muslims. Being anti-Islam is being pro-Muslim because the main victims of Islam are Muslims. This is not anti-Muslim hate. In fact, you cannot be anything but anti-Islam if you care about Muslims.
If you don’t stand against Islam you’re abandoning Muslim women, Muslim homosexuals, Shia Muslims under Suni regimes, Sunni Muslims under Shia regimes, Baha’i Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Ismaili Muslims etc. Not enough people talk about Yemen because it doesn’t serve the Muslims narrative because these are Muslims killing Muslims. It doesn’t serve U.S. narrative because U.S. gets a shitload of money selling weapons. This is a war crime.
You think we’re being islamophobic? Saudi Arabia is bombing mosques in Yemen. How many people are dying by the hands of Nazis today? They ask me, “what’s the point of comparing Islam to Nazism?” The point is to show people’s priorities. Because people don’t care about their fellow human beings. People care about just what’s happening in their own backyard.
Consider this: which one is worse? The atomic bomb or the Kalashnikov?
Scott: Probably Kalashnikov in the hands of people over a long time.
Armin: Number of people who died by the Kalashnikov is way more than the atomic bomb.
People are more afraid of plane crashes than car accidents. Even though car accidents have way more victims. It’s the same with Nazism and Islam. Nazim, when it came to power, managed to destroy many lives in a short amount of time. But If you look at the larger impact of Islam, it should scare us more.
The leftists accuse us of being Islamophobic and we’re trying to tell them that no, we are criticizing ideas not people. My suggestion is forget the leftists, because what’s the point of criticizing Islam? A lot of people who criticizes Islam, they’re trying to warn the West. But Islam is coming and you can’t stop it. Unless you actually talk to Muslims. And more importantly, what you’re afraid might one day happen to your Western country, is already a reality for many Islamic countries. We need to stop playing defense. We need to reach out to Muslims in Islamic countries.
The best way to fight Islam is to reach out to Muslims. And the best way to reach out to Muslims is to befriend Muslims. Trying to convince Westerners and non-Muslim Westerners that are afraid, that’s not going to stop anything because this is an ideology and it will continue spreading unless you talk to the people that believe it.
In fact, the more people see Muslims themselves as the threat, the more people will victimize Muslims. The more you victimize Muslims, the more it helps Islam to grow. Religion feeds on being the victim. The only way to stop Islam is try to reach out to people. You can’t stop it by force. You have to actually try to convince people out of it. That’s the only way you can fight Islam.
The people we need to warm [about] Islam are Muslims. To be able to talk to Muslims [about] how bad Islam [is], we have to try to convince them that us being against Islam is not us being against Muslims. That’s a very hard thing to do but not as hard as most people think.
The reason why it’s very difficult is because most Muslims see Islam as part of their identity. But I think Muslims are much more than just Muslims just like an atheist is way more than just an atheist and a Christian is way more than just a Christian.
As an atheist, I’m a husband, I’m a humanist, feminist, Game of Thrones fan. I think every Muslim is more than just a Muslim. But we have to acknowledge that many Muslims see Islam as a major part of their identity. Our attack on Islam is not intended as a personal attack. Even when they see it a personal attack. We should invite them to take our intentions into consideration when they’re judging us. This is very important for Muslims because we are all looking for allies.
I tell Muslims that they might find things we’re saying offensive. But it’s better to be offended than to be discriminated against. We will challenge your ideas, but we will stand with you against those who challenge your rights. We will fight your ideas but we will defend your rights.
So you have to see us as allies because you need allies. We need you as our allies because the bigots are not just your enemies, they’re our enemies as well.
You also have to see that the left is not helping you. Not all of them but many people in the left that are saying “Don’t say these things”, “these are offensive”, “you’re attacking Muslims.” You must understand that they are the ones being bigots because they’re suggesting that you can’t take criticism. That you are like children who need protection from these Westerners. You can’t handle criticism of your ideas.
They don’t react to us when we criticize Christianity, only Islam. So you have to see that it’s a kind of bigotry because they’re suggesting that maybe Christians are mature enough for us to disagree with them. You must fight that.
What I’m waiting for is the day that some Muslims show the world that they are tolerant, that they’re not sensitive little “snowflakes” by opening their mosque to ex-Muslims speakers. Imagine if your mosque was the first mosque that invites an ex-Muslim speaker. Be that first mosque. Show the world that you can handle criticism.
My main point is we need to reach out to Muslims instead of the left. If we try to challenge Islam, Muslims should be our target.
It might feel like a personal attack but it’s not our intention.
I usually ask Muslims if they disagree with Christianity and the answer is always “yes”. Are you a Christianophobe or anti-Christian? Do you hate Christians? And they usually say “no”.
That’s just a very simple example to show why disagreeing on an ideology is not the same as hating them because they do it themselves. Every Muslim disagrees with Christianity but most Muslims won’t say they hate Christians or they’re anti-Christian.
Sometimes I hear some Muslims say it’s okay to criticize Islam but just don’t ridicule it. First of all, we must be able to ridicule what we want but whether that’s productive or not, I would tell you that I know a lot of Muslims that came to our page because they found something offensive and they stayed on our page, the Atheist Republic page, long enough for them to eventually doubt their beliefs. It was the offensive things that attracted them until they eventually left Islam.
Second, when we ridicule Islam, we’re not coming to a mosque and ridiculing Islam, we’re not going to a Muslim page and ridiculing Islam, we’re not going into your living room and telling you that your god is fake.
We are doing this on atheist pages, atheist websites, atheist twitter accounts. So if you’re seeing these contents you don’t like, you either don’t know how to block people that you don’t like or you’re actively looking for it. If it’s the first one, I suggest a search on YouTube on how to block a page. It’s either one of those things or if you’re curious, then you can’t tell us to stop because you’re the one on our platform.
If I were to defend mocking Islam when I’m talking to a Muslim, I tell them this:
“When I was a Muslim we used to make fun of other religions. Like I ask a Muslim, “Don’t you find it ridiculous that god could have a son?”
Every religion makes fun of other religions. If it’s okay for Muslims to make fun, then it’s okay for atheists to make fun of Islam.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Armin.
Gordon Guyatt holds a joint medical appointment and is a Professor of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact at McMaster University’s Faculty of Health Sciences. He is a distinguished member of the Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre and the Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at McMaster. Professor Guyatt specializes in evidence-based medicine, developing and applying rigorous research methodologies to enhance healthcare practices and policies. His influential work ensures that clinical decisions are supported by the best available scientific evidence, improving patient outcomes and public health. In addition to leading cutting-edge research initiatives, Professor Guyatt is dedicated to mentoring students and professionals, fostering the next generation of health scientists. His commitment bridges the gap between scientific research and practical healthcare solutions, driving innovation and excellence in the health sciences.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The last time we talked was probably–I don’t know–3 or 4 years ago. I believe the lasttouchpoint for us was the red meat study. You were critiquing some general dietary health recommendations. The red meat study raised questions about the degree of risk that can be reasonably proposed to people and how much personal preferences and values play a role in whether they’ll choose to consume three servings of meat per week or so.
Jacobsen: Was this in recognition of your overall work in health science, or was it for something specific?
Guyatt: It was for something other than a specific piece of work. It was for my overall lifetime contribution.
Jacobsen: Have you had any updates on evidence-based medicine, especially its definition, use, and practice?
Guyatt: There’s been an evolution. We’re always trying to improve shared decision-making, but it’s challenging. Do you remember what GRADE is?
Jacobsen: I remember the acronym but need help remembering what each part stands for.
Guyatt: I am also trying to remember what each part stands for.
Jacobsen: Wasn’t it about appropriate systematic reviews?
Guyatt: GRADE stands for Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. It’s a framework for assessing the quality of evidence and deciding what’s trustworthy. It also helps move from evidence to recommendations or action. GRADE has been a big hit and is now used by over 110 organizations worldwide. Many consider it the standard for systematic reviews and guideline development.
However, GRADE has become too complex. Over 50 papers explain various aspects of applying it, and some of the guidance contradicts itself because of evolving changes. Some of it could be more sophisticated for many users. As a result, we are creating something called “Core GRADE.” It’s meant to simplify things by focusing on the essential components people need to know. We’re producing a series of papers about Core GRADE.
Jacobsen: What is in Core GRADE, not Core GRADE or general GRADE?
Guyatt: Well, it’s a bit difficult because it’s highly technical. We first say that methods are now available to compare a whole range of treatments simultaneously. But for Core GRADE, we’re comparing treatment A to treatment B. The more complex evidence evaluation methods are not part of our Core GRADE. We’ve identified benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, and values and preferences as key criteria for moving from evidence to recommendations.
But we’ve also identified issues like cost, resources, acceptability, feasibility, and equity may be involved. There’s a more advanced “evidence-to-decision” structure where you check off boxes for each factor. In Core GRADE, we say, “Please consider these issues.” However, we ask people to consider these issues without requiring them to fill out the entire chart, which can be time-consuming and energy-intensive. We’re trying to eliminate what you might call the “flat of the curve”—in other words, tasks that consume time and energy without significantly improving the result.
That’s an example of the kind of simplification we’re aiming for, where we say: “Think about these issues, but you don’t need to go through the whole process.”
Jacobsen: In addition to these modifications, are you developing new review methodologies or primarily focused on improving existing ones, such as GRADE or Core GRADE, or are you outside of Core GRADE?
Guyatt: Another key issue within the methods community is the ongoing tension between simplicity and methodological sophistication. What has happened to GRADE and some other areas is that there’s been an excessive focus on methodological sophistication without enough attention to keep things simple and manageable for users. So, we’ve just submitted a paper to The BMJ after going through a process of creating a simpler, yet still rigorous, way of assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials.
We’ll be introducing a new risk-of-bias instrument for randomized trials. A few years ago, we also developed a systematic approach to assessing the credibility of subgroup analyses, which is gaining traction and proving effective. These projects aren’t entirely new frameworks like GRADE, which fits under the broad umbrella of evidence-based Medicine (EBM). Instead, they’re components of the broader EBM and guideline process that aim to simplify and improve specific aspects.
Guyatt: As a global EBM community, one of our successes was rapidly producing evidence from randomized trials. One of the key innovations was using “adaptive trials,” also known as “platform trials”—probably a better term. Platform trials involve:
Setting up multiple centers worldwide or within a jurisdiction, following a single protocol.
Using the same data collection forms.
Adhering to the same ethical standards that we would follow for any trial.
But in this case, it’s for a series of trials.
So, for example, if you’re testing Drug A for a particular condition, you’ll collect the same types of data and measure the same outcomes across all sites.
And when you finish with Drug A, you don’t have to start all over again. You have all your centers signed up for a series of trials, all your data collection systems in place, your ethics approvals set, and everything ready. You move from one drug to the next. We had several of these platform trials running worldwide. As a result, we quickly identified three treatments that work for non-severe COVID-19 and three classes of treatments that work for severe COVID-19. That all happened rapidly. So, that was one big success.
The next step was quickly synthesizing the evidence from these trials. Up to 20 trials were published weekly at the height of the pandemic. Two major groups, including one at McMaster University, set up large operations to process this data. We had the resources to do this because many high-level grad students and junior faculty could handle the volume. We established this operation to process the 20 weekly trials, produce analyses, and identify what treatments worked and what didn’t.
We also incorporated network meta-analyses, which I referred to earlier, that allow for simultaneous comparisons of multiple treatments. So, instead of comparing Treatment A to a placebo or no treatment, you can compare A to B, C, D, E, and F and B to C, D, and so on. We weren’t just synthesizing data from these trials; we were conducting network meta-analyses.
The next step was to incorporate the evidence into the guidelines quickly. We streamlined the process of developing guidelines, building on work we’d already done. I’ve worked extensively with the World Health Organization on developing COVID-19 guidelines. We managed to accelerate the entire process.
We could quickly produce evidence from randomized trials, synthesize it into systematic reviews, and develop trustworthy guidelines to help clinicians manage their patients. That was a big success.
There were limitations, particularly in the public health sector. Public health responses were only sometimes managed as well as they could have been from an evidence-based perspective. One mistake that stands out is the failure to acknowledge uncertainty in decisions.
For instance, policies often shifted without explaining the reasoning: “Do this, now do that. Oh, no, do the opposite.” One significant error, in hindsight, was closing schools. It became apparent relatively early that children were at low risk. Yet, schools were closed, causing significant harm, particularly to vulnerable and disadvantaged low-income families. The cost of this decision was huge.
The question is, how could that decision have been made better? Acknowledging the uncertainty upfront helped.
Jacobsen: When did you first start writing for newspapers?
Guyatt: Oh, God. About 25 years ago—maybe 20 years. I’d have to check. It’s been long enough that I’ve forgotten exactly when I started.
Jacobsen: You tweeted or posted about avoiding paragraphs longer than three sentences on X. Why that specific length?
Guyatt: When I started writing for newspapers, I realized I needed to adjust my writing style. I had been reading newspapers all my life, but I hadn’t noticed how they were written. I decided to analyze what makes good newspaper writing. I was shocked that most newspaper paragraphs are only one or two sentences long. Occasionally, they’ll have paragraphs with three sentences, but that’s about it.
I thought, “Whoa, if I’m going to write well for newspapers, I must follow this style.” So, I started writing paragraphs that were at most three sentences, often just two and sometimes even one. Then, I realized that if this approach makes writing clearer in newspapers, it might also work in scientific articles. And, in my experience, it does.
It does make things clearer in scientific articles. That evolution of my writing significantly affected how I approach scientific writing.
Jacobsen: Do you have any tips for individuals who want to write about science but don’t need a background in it? I’m thinking of journalists and others, such as poets or writers, who want to express scientific ideas.
Guyatt: Sure. I wrote a paper more than 20 years ago specifically addressing this issue—journalists writing about health. How can journalists do a good job writing about health? Assuming they’re already good writers—that’s another issue entirely, but let’s assume the writer is good—one major problem health journalists face is that scientific findings are often oversold.
A good health journalist will repeatedly caution, “There’s much hype around this, but it’s probably oversold. Let’s be careful and wait for more evidence.” The problem is, this doesn’t make it into the newspaper. The editor will likely say, “Boring, boring, boring. Give me something exciting.” So there’s this huge incentive to declare, “Great breakthrough!” because that will make the article newsworthy. But if you write, “This isn’t such a great breakthrough,” the article often gets ignored.
It’s a tough position for health journalists, but if you want to do a good job, you must emphasize skepticism. One piece of advice: when there’s a purported breakthrough, don’t talk exclusively to the person who made the discovery. Talk to other experts in the field and see what they think about this so-called breakthrough.
And if you do talk to the discoverer, be aware of their inherent conflict of interest. They have every incentive to make people believe they made a significant breakthrough—they want invitations to speak worldwide, recognition, and more research opportunities. There’s a natural incentive to oversell the discovery. Also, follow the money. Who funded the research? Often, it’s a drug company with a vested interest in promoting the findings. There are multiple incentives to oversell.
Jacobsen: The last time we spoke, you mentioned a colleague working on something related to stroke risk. You said he might have found a way to reduce that risk. Was it Devereaux?
Guyatt: Yes, that’s right. Devereaux has done incredible work, but it focuses more on preventing complications after surgery. Specifically, he’s shown that low doses of anticoagulants can prevent cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes, after surgery. That’s probably what you’re referring to.
Jacobsen: What kind of risk reduction are we talking about?
Guyatt: I don’t know off the top of my head, but it’s around a 30% relative risk reduction.
Jacobsen: There’s been much discussion about losing trust in vaccines. What do you think are the causes and costs of that?
Guyatt: One of the things I’ve learned as an evidence-based practitioner is to quickly identify when I don’t know the evidence on a particular question. I avoid launching into speculative answers. I’m not a sociologist, and I don’t know which branch of social science would be best suited to address your question. I could speculate, but I wouldn’t be better at it than anyone else.
Jacobsen: That’s a fair point. You’ve made similar points in some of your posts. You’ve mentioned that when we receive criticism, we immediately get defensive. What is a more constructive response to that, rather than feeling threatened?
Guyatt: Well, the first thing I do is label it red alert. I’m feeling defensive and likely to respond in a sub-optimal way. Generally, the optimal way to respond is to say, “You may have a point.” Someone is pointing out a possible limitation in your work, so the first step is acknowledging that.
If you’re feeling defensive, it’s often a sign that the person has a valid point. So, you acknowledge it and say, “This doesn’t mean that everything I’ve put forth is fundamentally flawed, but it almost certainly means there are some limitations.” Considering those limitations and recognizing that your defensive feelings likely mean the other person has a point is a better way to handle the situation. Quickly acknowledging when someone has a point—even if it’s one I’d prefer not to admit—has been helpful.
Jacobsen: When we discussed red meat studies, we touched on some evidence that countered traditional health guidelines, specifically relative risks. Hypothetically, suppose someone wants to live the longest, healthiest life using evidence-based medicine. What tend to be the things most supportive of those goals and values?
Guyatt: Don’t smoke! The number one thing is: if you’re a smoker, stop. If you’ve never started, don’t. That’s the most impactful step for a long and healthy life.
After that, we’re talking about lifestyle factors. The evidence for dietary recommendations is limited. The Mediterranean and low-fat diets may increase lifespan, but the evidence isn’t robust. It’s not conclusive, but it’s still worth paying attention to.
Exercise seems like a good idea, but the evidence could be better. While it’s generally beneficial, I can tell you from personal experiences—such as my biking accidents—that it can also lead to injuries. I even had a subdural hematoma once. So, while I might have said, “Exercise probably won’t hurt you,” it depends on the type of exercise you choose. It certainly can hurt you.
Jacobsen: Outside of that, is there evidence in general to pick your parents well?
Guyatt: Absolutely, yes.
Jacobsen: What’s your general assessment of the current landscape of popular health reporting? As a non-expert journalist, has there been improvement, or are things largelythe same?
Guyatt: I have yet to focus much on critically reading popular health articles, so I’m not well-equipped to answer that in detail. However, as mentioned earlier, health journalists face a very difficult position. There’s a demand for bold, eye-catching statements, even when the evidence doesn’t necessarily support them. The challenge of balancing evidence with the need for sensational headlines remains unsolved.
Jacobsen: If we take a generalized approach to evidence-based evaluation, how do standardized tests compare to high school grades in predicting academic success?
Guyatt: Completely outside of my expertise.
Jacobsen: Are there any other lessons from COVID?
Guyatt: One thing I should have mentioned earlier about the success of evidence-based Medicine during COVID-19 was how we handled journal publications. Traditionally, from the time you submit your paper to the time it’s published, months go by. And if you talked about your findings beforehand, top journals would refuse to publish your work because they wanted the scoop.
During COVID, it became clear that this was completely irresponsible. Journals softened their stance and allowed pre-publications or preprints to circulate, which helped get critical findings out quickly. However, now that the crisis has passed, we’re seeing a return to the old ways. Even though important findings should be published quickly, they don’t get out as quickly as they should.
There were all these pre-publications. Before, when you did a pre-publication, the journals would say, “No way.” Thank God they did in these situations. The problem was that money was not available to do the research. But as soon, things were back to the way they were before. We have not lost everything but temporarily lost everything during COVID.
Jacobsen: Who are the main academic opponents of evidence-based medicine and the GRADE approach? I may be framing it improperly, too.
Guyatt: There is slower uptake in certain areas. The opposition has gone underground because everyone calls themselves “evidence-based.” “Evidence-based” is evidence-based without necessarily being evidence-based in how we think about it. There are mutterings here and there, but what used to be the fundamental challenge is not there anymore.
There are areas of slower uptake. Concerning GRADE, the oncology community needs to be faster. That one occurs to me. So, it is not opposition. It is a limited uptake, with more enthusiastic uptake in some areas than others.
Jacobsen: How do you see sloganeering as a problem in reporting on evidence-based medicine? So I can clarify. You were noting how evidence-based this and evidence-based that is. The way you’re saying that I sense a certain way in which public reportage on evidence-based medicine or people wanting to use the phrase “evidence-based medicine” because of its weight can lead to misunderstandings. Not only about how it is done but also about what it truly means to be appropriately evidence-based.
Guyatt: The biggest limitation getting on for 25 years, we’ve been making a big fuss that a central core of EBM is that evidence doesn’t tell you by itself what you do, but only if it is evidence in the context of patient preferences and values. Yet, people still have trouble grasping that. They think evidence-based medicine is all about randomized trials, but it’s not. It’s about finding the best available evidence to inform a decision one is facing. People have difficulty getting that, as well.
Jacobsen: Are there areas of medicine where “GOBSAT” (Good Old Boys Sitting Around a Table) is still a methodology?
Guyatt: I need to be made aware of any surveys on this, but there are areas where it’s still likely to occur, particularly in situations where high-quality evidence is unavailable or unlikely to emerge. For example, I have gone to meetings for rare diseases. Understandably, you have kids with terrible genetic diseases. Their lives have function going down. Something comes up. “We cannot wait to find out whether it works. You have to save the kid now.” This reaction is completelyunderstandable from an emotional standpoint but presents challenges from a scientific perspective.
But if someone says, “Our values and preferences are such that we’re ready to spend $1,000,000 a year,” that’s a serious consideration. They may spend that much money to give a child something that may have no beneficial effect and could cause harm. But if they value possible and unlikely improvement, then fine—let’s do it.
However, let’s keep the same rules to avoid acknowledging low-quality evidence. They don’t like calling it “low-quality evidence.” Let’s recognize that some things are simply more trustworthy than others. GRADE calls “low-quality evidence” untrustworthy, but they want to rename it.
For instance, the nutrition community has developed the NutriGRADE approach. Essentially, they say, “What you guys call low-quality evidence, we consider good evidence.” I understand their position and am sympathetic to their dilemma, but it’s still problematic.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of something we discussed in a previous interview that is worth re-emphasizing: fraud in the medical community. While it does happen, it doesn’t happen that frequently. For the most part, when fraud occurs, it gets caught, and they are penalized. This seems to be true for academia as a whole, too. What are the key points to emphasize regarding fraud in the medical community?
Guyatt: I can’t think of anything specific at the moment. What exactly are you asking about?
Jacobsen: I’m asking about the skepticism some people might have regarding the prevalence of fraud in the medical community. You’ve mentioned before that fraud is rare and usually gets caught. Can you elaborate on that?
Guyatt: Ah, now I see what you’re getting at. Yes, I believe fraud in the medical community doesn’t happen very often. When it does, it generally gets caught. It might happen more frequently than I used to think, but still, it’s uncommon.
After digging deeper, I found that there have been cases where people have uncovered more instances of fraud than expected. However, these are usually low-impact studies that need more attention. If someone commits fraud in an area that few people care about, it’s less likely that anyone will put in the effort to expose it.
Large-scale fraud that significantly impacts medical practice or research is rare. It is also unusual for fraud to lead to changes in major medical protocols or treatments.
Jacobsen: You mentioned the NutriGRADE approach earlier. Could you expand on that?
Guyatt: The NutriGRADE approach is used in nutrition and ranks evidence differently than in GRADE. They’re more willing to consider certain kinds of evidence “good” that we would label as low-quality. This creates challenges, as their system doesn’t align with how we assess the reliability of evidence. Still, it reflects the different values and needs within their field.
Jacobsen: What is NutriGRADE?
Guyatt: I only know some of the details, but it was developed about a decade ago or so. Essentially, they say, “We’re going to move the goalposts.” For example, these observational studies that GRADE would classify as low-quality evidence, NutriGRADE calls moderate-quality evidence. They claim that their nutrition studies produce more trustworthy evidence than GRADE suggests.
Jacobsen: Would you consider NutriGRADE reliable at all?
Guyatt: When you use the word “reliable,” it has a specific technical meaning for me as a methodologist. But if you mean in a broader sense—whether it’s trustworthy—here’s how I’d explain it. Let’s say you have two identical bodies of evidence. They are the same regarding how the studies were conducted, and the inferences you draw from them are identical.
Now, in one case, you could conduct a randomized trial. On the other hand, it’s impossible to conduct one. Are these two bodies of evidence equally trustworthy? The people who can’t conduct randomized trials might say, “Yes, let’s consider this more trustworthy since we’ll never have a trial.” But that’s not a tenable position. If the evidence is identical, it should be treated the same, whether or not a trial is feasible.
Jacobsen: You are a fan of acronyms. What is MAGIC, or the Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice initiative?
Guyatt: MAGIC is a group I’m involved with, and it’s focused on improving what we call the “evidence ecosystem.” An evidence ecosystem involves several steps: basic science informs observational studies, which inform randomized trials. Then, randomized trials inform systematic reviews, and systematic reviews inform guidelines. These guidelines then inform dissemination strategies to get evidence-based information out to clinicians and patients. It’s all about making the flow of evidence more efficient and actionable.
MAGIC’s role is to improve this evidence ecosystem. For example, during the pandemic, MAGIC helped enhance the system by establishing a collaboration with The BMJ for what we call “BMJ Rapid Recommendations.” We scan the literature for new, practice-changing evidence, quickly conduct systematic reviews, assemble a guideline panel, and produce trustworthy guidelines. These are then rapidly published in The BMJ.
During COVID-19, having already built this collaboration with The BMJ and the World Health Organization (WHO), MAGIC brokered a further collaboration between The BMJ and WHO. We served as consultants and partners with WHO to make sure the evidence ecosystem worked as efficiently as possible, especially when rapid decision-making was crucial.
At McMaster, we were one of the groups involved in a living network meta-analysis, where we processed all these trials to gather the necessary evidence. This evidence informed the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. So, while we didn’t create the evidence from the trials, we summarized it and brought it to the WHO, saying, “Here’s the latest evidence.”
We also acted as methodologists, helping the guideline panels move from evidence to recommendations. The day WHO publishes its recommendations, they’re also published in The BMJ. This way, the guidelines reach two different audiences simultaneously. WHO’s audience includes decision-makers, particularly in low-income countries, and The BMJ reaches a clinical audience. It was the first time this type of coordinated publication had been done.
This was MAGIC fulfilling its mission: processing evidence quickly, feeding that evidence into a trustworthy guideline process, producing trustworthy guidelines as fast as possible, and then disseminating the information effectively.
Jacobsen: I saw a tweet from September 25, 2023, that said, “Every high-income country with universal public healthcare has universal public prescription drug coverage, except Canada. It is time to change that with a public pharmacare program.” Does that sound correct?
Guyatt: You’re quoting me! We should have a universal pharmacy coverage system. However, claiming that every other country has universal coverage might stretch the truth, but it makes a political point. The gist is accurate: Canada is one of the few high-income countries without universal prescription drug coverage.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on that?
Guyatt: It’s true that in Europe, for example, well over 50% of drug payments are publicly funded, while in Canada, a large portion—over 50%—comes out of people’s pockets. In some European countries, it’s as high as 60-70% publicly funded. Canada did something odd—we decided to pay for doctors and hospitals. Still, we didn’t include prescription drugs in our universal healthcare system. Other countries have a more balanced approach to covering healthcare costs.
Jacobsen: Why did Canada take that approach? Was there a historical reason?
Guyatt: It goes back to the 1960s, to Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. The initial idea was to include drugs in the healthcare system, but it was something the government said they would get around to. They never did.
Jacobsen: Which European countries that offer universal prescription drug coverage are the most efficient in terms of cost and efficacy of outcomes?
Guyatt: My knowledge here is somewhat superficial, but I haven’t seen a single “role model” system that Canada could copy exactly. Some countries do certain things better, while others excel in different areas. It’s not as straightforward as saying one system is the most efficient overall.
Whether one system works better depends on local culture or specific policies. I’m unclear about which factors are most important.
Jacobsen: Speculative question: What gaps in the GRADE approach or evidence-based medicine could theoretically be addressed in the future, either as a new methodology or something outside its current scope?
Guyatt: I need help identifying any major gaps in GRADE, but we still face big challenges in efficient shared decision-making. Clinicians worldwide are time-constrained, and figuring out how to implement shared decision-making optimally remains a challenge.
Jacobsen: Could you break that down for those who might not be familiar with the concept?
Guyatt: Sure. One example we often use involves atrial fibrillation, an abnormal heart rhythm that significantly increases the risk of stroke. We have anticoagulants that reduce the risk of stroke but also increase the risk of serious bleeding. How do you present this information to patients so they can make informed trade-offs? It’s a delicate balance. Another example is breast cancer screening—if women fully understood both the magnitude of the benefits and the downsides, many would likely say “no thanks” to screening. But we don’t always present these choices in a way that helps people fully understand what they’re deciding.
Jacobsen: Could future systems, like large language models, help make this information more accessible?
Guyatt: Large language models won’t solve this issue. We still need to improve how we present the information. The key is conducting randomized trials on different methods of presenting choices to patients, but it takes work.
Jacobsen: Gordon, thank you again for your time, sir. I appreciate it.
Guyatt: Oh, are we finished? That’ll give me a few minutes to say hello to the person who just came into the room—my 101-year-old stepmother.
Jen Edgecombe (She/Her) is the Director of sexual health and Well-Being for Prostate Cancer at Movember in Toronto, Ontario. With over 15 years of leadership in healthcare, Jen is dedicated to improving equitable access to cancer care and enhancing patient experiences. At Movember, she manages and delivers innovative prostate cancer initiatives, focusing on sexual health outcomes for patients and their partners.
Previously, Jen was Manager of Provincial Programs at BC Cancer in Vancouver, where she advanced patient-centred care and fostered cross-sector collaborations across British Columbia. Her role as Clinic Director at Lifemark Health Group and her long-term tenure with the City of Kamloops highlight her expertise in leading high-performing teams and implementing evidence-based practices.
Jen holds a Master of Rehabilitation Science in Oncology Supportive Care from The University of British Columbia. She is a passionate advocate for lifestyle interventions to reduce chronic disease burdens. She is actively involved in community engagement and public speaking.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Jennifer Edgecombe, the Director of Sexual Health and Wellbeing for Movember. How did you initially get involved with Movember?
Jennifer Edgecombe: Yes, thank you for having me. I’ve been with Movember for three and a half months. Before that, I worked at BC Cancer, the cancer control agency for British Columbia. I led the Patient and Family Experience team and the supportive care work across the province. At BC Cancer, I worked on projects that examined the experience of prostate cancer care for people in British Columbia—evaluating whether they had the information they needed, where there were gaps in knowledge about the next steps in care, and then developing educational processes to help people better understand what to expect and how to engage in shared decision-making. Through our focus groups with people affected by prostate cancer, we found that many were unaware of how significantly prostate cancer treatments would impact their sexual health and function.
So, when I saw the opportunity with Movember to address this issue, I applied immediately, eager to get involved in helping to find a solution to this prevalent and serious issue.
Jacobsen: When do men typically become more proactive about their prostate health? Is it only when cancer becomes a concern?
Edgecombe: Are you asking about screening guidelines?
Jacobsen: Yes, screening guidelines and general awareness of prostate health.
Edgecombe: The challenge is that every country—and even different regions within countries—has its guidelines based on the availability of doctors, tests, and the types of tests covered by public health systems, which can vary widely. Typically, we encourage people with prostates to begin the conversation with their doctors around the age of 50. However, for people of African descent, and those with a family history of prostate cancer, medical associationsrecommend starting the conversation about prostate health as early as age 40.
Jacobsen: Why is there a difference in the age recommendations for people of African descent?
Edgecombe: That’s a good question. There are biological factors at play. Some genetic factors predispose men of African and Caribbean descent to higher rates of prostate cancer than men of other backgrounds. Additionally, access to prostate cancer screening is not as readily available to some demographics. We want to ensure these conversations happen earlier so that treatment can be offered sooner and earlier, if necessary.
Jacobsen: What factors, in terms of environment, lifestyle, and wellness, also contribute to increasing the risk of prostate cancer?
Edgecombe: That’s a great question. There are genetic factors—if a first-degree relative, such as your father or brother, has had prostate cancer, you should consider getting checked. Prostate cancer is not a single disease; it consists of different tumour types and severities, so genetics plays a significant role. Lifestyle factors also matter—exercise, diet, alcohol consumption—all the things we know we should be mindful of contribute to someone’s risk of developing prostate cancer. If you have questions about your risk, speaking with a doctor is always a good idea.
Jacobsen: How much misinformation is there among men about their risk factors? Why don’t they check their health regularly, whether 40, 50, or older?
Jacobsen: Yes, this is a big issue for some individuals. There was a standard of care for a long time. In some areas, it’s still the standard to perform a digital rectal exam. This involves the doctor inserting their finger into a patient’s anus to check the prostate. For many individuals, that’s an uncomfortable and invasive experience, making it a test they would rather avoid.
Many health agencies have sidelined the digital rectal exam in favour of less invasive screening procedures. There are now blood tests that are quite accurate, and there are other tests your doctor can recommend. However, there seem to be two reasons people hesitate: first, the fear of testing because it feels uncomfortable, and second, the mindset of “if I don’t look at it, maybe it won’t exist.” Prostate cancer is a very prevalent disease, so it’s critical to encourage people with prostates to have these conversations and get checked as early as possible. This helps mitigate risk factors and ensures that testing starts early.
Jacobsen: What are comparable cancers in terms of prevalence in the general population?
Edgecombe: That’s a tricky question because there are cancers that are prevalent in the population, such as lung cancer or breast cancer. However, the impact and severity of those tumour types can be very serious. The survival rate for prostate cancer is quite high, so while the incidence of prostate cancer is high among North American men, the survival rate for isolated, localized tumours is also very high. I worry that comparing prostate cancer to something like lung cancer or breast cancer might cause more fear than necessary.
The important thing to understand about prostate cancer is that many people are diagnosed and go on to live very long, healthy lives. At the same time, there are comparable diseases in prevalence and onset, but the treatments and severity are not the same for most people. We want to encourage people to know their bodies and risk factors and get tested early to reduce those risks.
Jacobsen: What are some common detection and treatment modalities when resources are available?
Edgecombe: That’s a great question. The detection and treatment options can be quite sophisticated in more urban or well-resourced areas with advanced medical technologies. One common approach for some types of prostate cancer is called “active surveillance.” This means the doctor will monitor the tumour regularly without immediately resorting to treatment. The idea is to check periodically for any changes and intervene only if necessary, which allows many people to live for a long time with minimal impact on their quality of life.
Another common treatment is surgery, typically performed by a urologist. The urologist surgically removes the tumour, a widely available option since it can be done in most surgical centers. Another option for some people is radiation therapy. In Canada, for example, access to radiation therapy is limited by the availability of expensive machines called linear accelerators, which are not present in every facility. Surgery may be preferred in less densely populated areas simply because it’s more readily available.
For more advanced-stage prostate cancer, there are also hormone treatments and systemic therapies, which target the cancer more broadly and are used when the disease has spread.
Jacobsen: What about in more isolated areas where advanced technologies might not be available for detection and treatment?
Edgecombe: This is another tricky issue, particularly for people in the United States or Canada. In North America, we see significant differences in access to care depending on where you live. In privatized healthcare settings, especially in the U.S., there’s often greater access to innovative treatments and cutting-edge technologies. However, access can be more limited in more rural or isolated areas.
As I mentioned, active surveillance is a viable option for some patients, which can be helpful in areas where more advanced treatments aren’t easily accessible. When treatment is necessary, surgery is generally available because it can be performed in most surgical centers. Patients may have access to radiation therapy in more urban areas or facilities with better funding, but that depends on the availability of equipment like the linear accelerator. For those with more advanced prostate cancer, hormone therapy or systemic treatments are also available options, though again, access may vary based on location and healthcare infrastructure.
So some people might recognize these as chemotherapy-type treatments. As I mentioned, prostate cancer is not a single disease, and it manifests differently in different people. For example, two people can both have prostate cancer, but one may undergo active surveillance while another might need intense hormone treatment, such as androgen deprivation therapy or radiation therapy. It varies from person to person. Additionally, some may have access to advanced private hospitals in the U.S. that offer innovative treatments that others may not even be aware of.
Jacobsen: What are the impacts on sexual health? How are men who are undergoing treatment or are post-treatment for prostate cancer managing the sexual health issues that may arise as a consequence of various treatments?
Edgecombe: Yes, this is an important question. It’s essential to define how sexual function changes and why that might occur. Experts in this field use what’s called the biopsychosocial model to explain changes in sexual function. So, is it biological—something physical that has changed sexual function? Is it psychological—perhaps increased anxiety that is causing changes? Or is it social—factors like relationship dynamics or even broader social factors, such as whether the individual belongs to a minority sexual orientation or gender identity group? These are the three areas we look at when identifying changes to sexual function.
With prostate cancer, there’s added complexity. The risk factors for prostate cancer overlap with risk factors for other diseases that can also affect erectile function. For example, diabetes can cause issues with sexual function. So, suppose someone with diabetes also has prostate cancer. In that case, the question becomes: Is the problem due to prostate cancer, diabetes, or perhaps anxiety? It’s important to consider all these factors.
In many press releases and studies, numbers are given to describe how many people experience sexual health changes related to prostate cancer, but I want to caution us here. There are a few barriers to confidently reporting these numbers. One of them is underreporting—many men may not feel comfortable disclosing changes in sexual function, especially in a society that emphasizes masculinity and the importance of erections. Are they willing to admit that their sexual function has changed? Another factor is the complexity I mentioned—whether the issue is due to diabetes, anxiety, or prostate cancer itself.
Experts seem to agree that most men with prostate cancer will experience changes in sexual function. Some may be able to resolve or improve the issue. Still, we must give people the language and remove the stigma so that they can have these conversations.
Jacobsen: In the biopsychosocial model, what are the chances that sexual function or dysfunction will resolve itself, and how common is this resolution among men who have had or are currently suffering from prostate cancer, especially with the benefit of modern expertise and technology?
Edgecombe: That’s a great question. Much of the current work is focused on redefining sexual scripts, intimacy, and even the role of erectile function as a component of masculinity. It’s difficult to be certain about statistics when it comes to whether two people with the same prostate cancer will both retain or recover their sexual function after treatment. It’s highly individual, and what works for one person may not work for another.
On the biomedical side, various treatments are available to address biological issues. However, there’s a misconception among many people. Some think, “I’ll have the cancer treatment, and if there’s a problem afterward, I’ll just take a PDE5 inhibitor,” which is better known by brand names like Viagra or Cialis, and that will fix everything. The reality is that, for many people, those inhibitors won’t work because the underlying mechanism that they rely on has been altered by prostate cancer therapy.
Other devices, such as vacuum pumps and injections, can be used. Other rehabilitation treatments are also available, and clinics have been established to guide people and their partners through this process. When discussing the resolution, it’s important not to think about it as simply regaining the same function as before. Instead, there’s a shift towards redefining what sexual function means.
Many people define their sexual identity or “sexual script” based on their experiences at 17 when they have optimal health and function. Society tends to focus on penetrative sex as the ideal. Still, that mindset doesn’t always help individuals who have experienced changes due to prostate cancer. There’s an opportunity here to redefine what sexual health and intimacy mean and to encourage conversations that allow people to create a new normal.
Jacobsen: Why are the number of prostate cancer cases projected to double by 2040?
Edgecombe: You’re referring to the study funded by Movember in April. Several factors are contributing to the projected doubling of cases. First, the disease burden is already substantial. With more diagnostic tools becoming available, more cases are being identified. Additionally, lifestyle issues are playing a role. Unfortunately, society is not becoming more active and only sometimes adhering to recommended lifestyle guidelines.
These significant projections should be taken seriously because they will impact healthcare systems, individuals, families, and partners. It’s important to prepare for the increase in cases and ensure we have the resources to manage this growing health issue.
Jacobsen: How did the partnership with Movember come about? Aside from the study, what benefits have come from this partnership regarding raising awareness?
Edgecombe: Are you referring to the partnership with the International Society of Sexual Medicine (ISSM)?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Edgecombe: ISSM has been a global leader in sexual medicine for many years. When Movember was starting, it had always focused on prostate cancer—raising money and awareness about the disease. Early on, Movember identified that the number one side effect men were most concerned about after prostate cancer treatment was the resultant changes to sexual function. Initially, we thought it might be medication management or something else. Still, when we asked people directly, it became clear that sexual function was the most important issue for them.
So, Movember and ISSM created a partnership several years ago to address this concern and find ways to help people manage the sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment. Together, they’ve been working to provide resources and solutions for those affected.
Jacobsen: I was surprised that the investment was so significant. Movember’s investment in prostate cancer research totalled USD 230.4 million.
Edgecombe: Yes, that’s correct. Across Movember’s entire portfolio, a large portion of that funding is directed towards various cause areas, with sexual health being one of them. The investment spans multiple research areas, and sexual health is a key focus.
Jacobsen: What kind of feedback have you received, whether from media, experts, or other partners, regarding the funding, research, and awareness raised by Movember?
Edgecombe: It’s important to note that while Movember has funded many studies—and research is critical—studies alone aren’t the solution. They are just one part of the puzzle in addressing these issues. The feedback we’ve received is clear: people want action. They’ve spoken about the challenges they face. The research helps us understand those challenges, but the goal is to turn that understanding into practical solutions that help people manage the side effects of prostate cancer treatment, especially regarding sexual health.
Jacobsen: This is the number one issue men are dealing with after prostate cancer. By coordinating and funding the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines, Movember is truly putting its money where its mouth is and moving the conversation forward. This is going to completely change the experience of prostate cancer treatment for people around the world.
Regarding your question about the response, there has been a lot of excitement and optimism. For many, this has been a bleak area for a long time, and now there is hope. Physicians are going to be equipped with the tools they need to address sexual health changes with their patients. Patients, in turn, will receive the information they need to understand what will happen and how they can manage it. Nurses and allied health staff, including social workers and others on the care team, will also have the necessary knowledge. This ensures that the side effects will be addressed—not necessarily solved. Still, patients won’t be left at home, struggling with life-altering side effects and feeling like there’s nothing they can do or talk about.
This is going to change a lot of people’s lives.
Jacobsen: Has there been any resistance to the provision of these guidelines?
Edgecombe: Could you clarify what you mean?
Jacobsen: Sure. Have you encountered cultural or social resistance as Movember and the medical community introduce these new health guidelines, including recommendations and strategies to help patients? You mentioned earlier that redefining certain traditional models might be challenging in some subcultures within North America.
Edgecombe: Yes, that’s an important point. To clarify for anyone listening—Movember isn’t the author of these guidelines. Movember funded and coordinated the initiative, but these guidelines were developed by the world’s leading experts in sexual medicine, who synthesized the available data. Clinical guidelines represent the highest quality of evidence we have in medicine.
The guidelines consist of 47 clinical practice statements, and the first statement emphasizes that there should be a clinician-led conversation with the patient about realistic expectations for sexual function following prostate cancer treatment. This conversation must also include cultural and social factors. Part of this initiative’s work is ensuring that these conversations are sensitive to the individual patient’s cultural and social background. For example, you mentioned subcultures where traditional models might be more resistant to certain discussions. We recognize that people’s experiences in healthcare differ greatly based on these factors, so the guidelines must consider those differences.
This work is important because these underserved populations are the focus. In every region where we operate—Canada, the U.S., Australia, and others—we’re collaborating with local experts to understand who has historically had poor healthcare experiences, who might be missed by this service delivery, or who may face barriers to access. We’re then working to create culturally and socially appropriate approaches to care so that most people can benefit from it.
Jacobsen: As we’re looking at time, how can people get involved, whether through volunteering, financial contributions, offering expertise, or applying for positions?
Edgecombe: I’m new to Movember, but this work can only be done with people joining the cause. We’re approaching our campaign month in November, and if you can grow a mustache, that’s one way to raise awareness and funds. You can also get involved by moving your body—through walks, runs, or any exercise to raise money. Or you could host a fundraising event with friends and have everyone donate. It’s important to remember that this work requires significant investment, and we want to ensure we can continue impacting as many people as possible.
If anyone wants to get involved, please visit the Movember website for more information. Suppose you want details on the guidelines, this initiative, or sexual health and prostate cancer. In that case, we have a website called True North that is specifically for patients. We’re updating the True North website with the latest guidelines and resources from ISSM, so that patients can access the same information as their doctors. We want patients to be well-informed and empowered to participate in decision-making about their treatment. Those are two great ways people can get involved.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Any final thoughts based on today’s conversation, Jennifer?
Edgecombe: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. I believe that the way we, as a society, approach sexual health right now can be harmful to many people. If I can accomplish one thing in this role, it would be to see more people openly discussing changes to their sexual health—especially when it’s related to cancer. We don’t want people sitting alone, depressed, or suffering because of stigma or outdated beliefs about masculinity. I hope that through this work, we can advance conversations about sexual health and masculinity and foster more support for one another.
Jacobsen: Jennifer, thank you very much for your time today.
Edgecombe: Thank you, Scott. This has been great.
–
More info:
Grow The traditional way to Mo for Movember is to grow a moustache to raise funds for men’s health.
Move to Get physically active by walking or running over the month for the 60 men we lose to suicide each hour across the world.
Host A popular workplace option, get together with your colleagues and do something fun – trivia, a tournament or something creative.
Mo Your Own Way: A choose-your-own-adventure challenge epic in scope and scale. Think big and go bigger. You make the rules.
Seth Meyers, Psy.D. (Psychology Today) is a licensed clinical psychologist, T.V. guest, author, and relationship expert. He appears regularly on television on “Nancy Grace” and has also appeared on “Dr. Drew,” “20/20,” “Good Morning America,” “The Doctors,” “Fox News,” Showbiz Tonight,” “Bill Cunningham,” “Jane Velez-Mitchell,” “The Early Show,” “Good Day L.A.,” “KTLA,” and others. He has been featured in The New York Times, USA Today, and The Huffington Post. His official website includes many media credits and television clips. He wrote Dr. Seth’s Love Prescription: Overcome Relationship Repetition Syndrome and Find the Love You Deserve. His newest podcast, on Spotify and iTunes, is INSIGHT with Dr. Seth.
Meyers explains the complexities of treating narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), emphasizing the resistance to therapy due to narcissists’ lack of self-awareness and sensitivity to criticism. He discusses therapy options, the role of the false self, and the emotional toll on those close to narcissists, highlighting the frustration and self-erasure they often experience.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Seth Meyers. We want to get some first thoughts on treatment modalities for either formal NPD or people along a spectrum of narcissistic patterns of psychology. So, what are treatment modalities available? What is the efficacy? What are your general thoughts on that, as an expert here?
Dr. Seth Meyers: Many individuals with mental health training will explain that a narcissistic personality is resistant to meaningful change. There are many different types of therapy that one could pursue for many different types of mental disorders, including personality disorders. One could seek out a behavioural type of therapy, such as dialectical behaviour therapy for the treatment of narcissistic personality, or one may seek out psychodynamic therapy, which is exploratory in nature to try to look at one’s unconscious drives, and motivations in order to see how that impacts their behaviour.
The same issue–let me put that differently; at root, narcissistic personality is a difficult disorder to study because it depends so much on the self-report of its subjects and because one’s self-image and presentation of self is central to the disorder, there is incredible loading or possibility for skewing and dishonest reporting. So, studying narcissism is much the experience of many reports of having a relationship with a severe Narcissist, which is to say, “Frustrating” because it is a complex construct that is difficult to truly examine.
Jacobsen: Is the difficulty in truly examining it due to the longevity of the enriched falsehoods that build or construct the complexities of the false self? The false self starts early to replace the true self or the authentic self–as placeholder terms.Does the longevity of this false self-existence and development make it that complex construct?
Meyers: So, to begin with, your question shows just how theoretical the construct of narcissism is. We have no ability toprove it. We will never prove the roots of narcissism.
Now, many people will talk about how there are two selves: a false self and a public self. As a practitioner and psychologist, I believe that. I also believe that we can glean that at some point in time, there was the construction of the bifurcation of 2 different selves. The problem is when it happened, it happened early, and that 6-year-old or 14-year-old probably wasn’t available to fill out any surveys that we could use later for psychological data reports. So we don’t know, and there’s a lot of inference.
There’s a lot of presumption that happens when we think about narcissists. What is most important whenever the conversation turns to narcissism is, “What can we say for sure? What can we say with the greatest certainty? And then what solutions are the best possible solutions given this, given what certainty we have”? What is most certain that we know is that people many people report having conflictual relationships with a subset of individuals who do not seem to have personality characteristics that are consistent with social convention and the social rules that young children are taught and then expected to have mastered by adult age, and those include basic things like empathy, social reciprocity, perspective taking, thinking about another person’s feelings.
We know for sure that there is a subset of individuals that display a lack of some of these important social characteristics, and yet, it does not necessarily translate to another subset of individuals we know of that we think of as full-blown psychopaths. And this subset that we are talking about is safe to call them–it is safe to refer to them as–narcissistic personalities because the DSM does do a good job of capturing those characteristics. Now, why does a person become a narcissist? We can only presume. Also, what is an effective treatment for a narcissist? Is there an effective treatment for a narcissist?
We’ll never have a good answer for that question a) because we would require an individual to believe that they have a problem in order to submit to treatment, and a part of the disorder is to resist the idea of there being any weakness or flaw. So, I’ll round out what I’m saying to say that another thing many people will share at the water cooler is that narcissists are never present for therapy, and this is common. This is conventional wisdom that narcissists don’t present for therapybecause they don’t believe anything is wrong with them. In my experience as a psychologist and as a practitioner, someone who has conducted and also reviewed 100, if not thousands, of complex mental assessments, mental health assessments over a 20-year career working in community mental health, hospitals, clinics, et cetera, that narcissistic personalities will actually sometimes present for therapy. Now, why do some narcissists go to treatment?
They do not go to treatment to correct problems they believe they have. They typically go because someone in their close personal life has bruised their ego, and what they do is they use the therapy and the therapist as a vehicle to ally with them and support them against the perceived threat or perpetrator who bruised their ego. Essentially, a narcissist may go to see a therapist to get the therapist to say, “Oh, you’re right. Your husband, or your wife, is crazy,” and sorry for talking so much.”
Jacobsen: It’s instructive. So they go to them for this validation of their false reality.
Meyers: To be propped up, that false self to be propped up.
Jacobsen: So when they’re doing this, are there ways in which ethically viable methodologies can leverage this pathology of that personality construct to provide a modicum of treatment?
Meyers: A meaningful question that is worth exploring is this one. If there is any way to reach a narcissist and possibly motivate change, what would that look like? The only hope for reaching a narcissist is to make them feel safe and to avoid anything at all that could even remotely be perceived as criticism. The narcissist is sensitive to criticism and hypersensitive to–hypersensitive in a way that almost reaches a state of clinical paranoia–that the slightest thing that could be wrong with them could act as dynamite because it could be used later as leverage against them. So a lot of what motivates the narcissist, what keeps them going, their guiding principle is to avoid vulnerability at all costs.
Narcissistic personalities tend to be scorekeepers, and the mental world they live in is all about who has the leverage. So exposing themselves and being vulnerable makes them terrified at root because they perceive it as an opening for someone to take advantage of them or exploit them, And they will not allow that under any circumstance.
Jacobsen: So there’s a lot there. Fear is the emotion of vulnerability and living in terms of the mental mode and the presentation of a false self. So what links this root in fear reaction, something automatic, this false self, and this not wanting, this lack of desire–whatever the opposite of desire is for–any form of vulnerability? So, the line of trend or thought is between linking both fear and not wanting any vulnerability. I guess the 4th one would be the extreme paranoia and the presentation of a false self in all ways. So let’s take a hypothetical–what happens if that person is, in fact, exposed and their illegitimate fears, in fact, do come true? What happens to this construct?
Meyers: One of the deepest and most primitive fears that a severe narcissist will have is the fear of being exposed, and that means being exposed as a human being with three dimensions and both strengths and weaknesses. See, flaws are not to be tolerated in the mental world of a narcissist. They cannot exist.
A lot of people will say that narcissism is a shame-based disorder, that the root of it is shame, that a young person was shamed so badly early on that it created this overcompensated self later. It’s a theory. Do I believe that that’s true? In some cases, though, that may not have happened. So now what happened with narcissism is you had some people that created this term.
“Well, these are covert narcissists,” “Well, these are these are more traditional narcissists,” and then you’ve got another camp that talks about malignant narcissists. All of these different terms show you how complex we are as everyday people; you know how complex this term is. And again, how frustrating because the truth is all we have are theories. All we really have are theories. But to answer your question in an organized way, what happens to the severe narcissist when exposed?
When a severe narcissist’s character defects are exposed, any vulnerabilities or weaknesses are exposed and able to be seen by others, especially anyone outside the home. The individual who perpetrated that exposure will become the target of rage. What most people cannot begin to relate to is the lengths to which the narcissistic individual has spent their life, their time, their energy, their mornings, noons, and nights trying to seal off any possibility that someone may come to see them as faulty in any way. The progression, the natural automatic reaction, is rage. Now, is there something biologically based happening?
Is there different amygdala functioning in narcissists? At what age? See, what we would really need in in the best best of all possible worlds, we would have really elaborate batteries of testing done, on children at 5, at 10, at 15, at 25. That way, then we could have a little better sense of the true roots of narcissism.
Jacobsen: It’s a good answer. What happens? Well, let’s take the inverse of these examples, and I don’t know how psychology presents itself. Healthy individuals, when they have their humanity shown, are not “exposed,” too, because “exposed” is a much more loaded term in this context. Although appropriate for the portrayal of the rage, coming out of the fear. So when someone has their regular self shown, they go to sleep. They go to the bathroom.
They wake up with bedheads. Just regular stuff. They got fired from some job some time ago. They failed an exam. Regular people stuff that happens from time to time. How does a normal, healthy person with a non-narcissistic psychological structure react, act, learn, and grow?
Meyers: So what I’m going to say to you is: I don’t know you, but I presume it will not make sense to you what I’m gonna say because my guess is that you are like most people.
If you ask a narcissist, what would you say are some of your weaknesses or some of your character defects? If you ask directly someone that you believe, and it’s only people, by the way, who truly can identify and know when an individual has this type of disorder, they feel it. They may not be mental health practitioners, but they know it; they feel it. They’ve read enough about it, usually people at work or people in their homes. Freud used to say that it is in one’s work life or one’s romantic life where one’s true deepest issues come out. It is true. It is within our work life and in our romantic life where, perhaps, our truest self gets to be known. Why? Because in those two environments, we are the most interdependent with others.
Interdependence, if you’re psychologically healthy, is terrific. Interdependence, if you are mentally unhealthy, is incredibly triggering. So a narcissist will tell you, will tell you, will look you straight in the eye with no effect, almost as if they don’t completely understand your question or are even slightly offended, will say, I don’t believe I really have any flaws.”
Jacobsen: That’s terrifying.
Meyers: Which is terrifying. Now, what a healthy person would say to the narcissist is, but are you do you believe you are not a human being? A part of normal social and psychological development, right, is for each one of us to progress from the age of children to adulthood to see our fallibility, our vulnerability. It is to say that, in some ways, to be a severe narcissist, their grandiosity is so extreme that, actually, they don’t see themselves in some ways as even human. Do you doyou know how wild that is to to wrap your head around?
Jacobsen: It seems as if from a non-expert perspective, when you’re saying these things, they are the literal case of a Martian, not coming down to Earth, but coming out of it, and finding themselves in a world in which their internal world is not fully integrated.
So there’s an insecurity of internal objects about life, ideas, people. So then, they have the paranoia example is quite interesting because it sounds they’re having a distorted interpretation of the events. Their internal objects are completely warped. So then, out of this paranoia, this misperception and misconception then becomes an extrapolated, to you, “Could you harm me sometime down the road? Therefore, I’m going to react and defend my hypothetical self.”
Meyers: That’s right. So, we are talking about cognitive distortion. We are talking about a type of cognitive distortion that can be so illogical. The question is, does it almost border on a mild psychotic process? At what point does someone’s grandiose delusion about their superiority break with reality to the point that we mental health experts would say, do we need to assess for psychosis? I’ll give you an example. I’ll share an example. I once had a supervisor in graduate school.
I went to grad school in New York. I once had a supervisor. She was working with a severely anorexic patient, severely anorexic. This individual had gone in and out of the hospital. The anorexia was so severe, and–I don’t know–you probably know enough about anorexia to know that this is a life-threatening disorder, anorexia. And this supervisor shared that she believed, based on her clinical expertise, she extrapolated that there may be what she believed is a psychotic element to that type of severe anorexia.
So, when we look at some of these cognitive distortions, now, we’re talking about severe narcissism as just one example, but there are many examples where one’s cognitive distortion about a thing, whether their own value as a person–narcissism, their own body–anorexia nervosa; when it can get so extreme that we really do have to ask ourselves to also rule out psychotic process diagnostically.
Jacobsen: Those seem like things you could potentially have a metric in terms of even gross anatomy of the mind. For things like the Penfield Map, you do actually get proportional sizing of things based on the number of nerves. If someone has a warped self-map with body dysmorphia and bulimia nervosa, could you, in fact, find something like “neural correlates” for these kinds of things?
Meyers: This is exactly why, in most colleges and universities, the psychology department is in the social sciences or inthe humanities department and not in the natural sciences. I do think that it’s possible. But any time we are trying to examine a disorder that is so interwoven with self-image, we will always have a challenge.
Jacobsen: Just mindful of time. So, what about the consequences, not for the individual? Those seem a little more obvious because if the person is living a false self, they’re essentially living a lie to themselves. When they are with others, when they want to date, mate, as they do, or others want to do with them–for a variety of reasons? What are the consequences of those relationships for people who find themselves in this vortex?
Meyers: Yes, so we are talking about the phenomenology of being in emotional proximity to a narcissist, the phenomenology of what it feels to be in a relationship, a consistent relationship with a narcissist.
I have written extensively about narcissism. I have worked with so many individuals who have had experiences with individuals who have narcissistic personalities. The experience is typically frustrating and self-erasing, self-dismissing. The individual in proximity to the narcissist, in regular proximity to the narcissist, comes to understand that their thoughts and feelings don’t really matter. Their thoughts and feelings are dismissed and waved away with a callous hand.
The individual comes to understand to keep the relationship; they must submit and agree to the spoken and unspoken rules that are outlined by the narcissist. Now, in the end, many narcissists are left either in work environments. People tend to leave those jobs or in romantic relationships; people will typically walk away. Children of narcissists will, sometimes, estrange themselves forever or for periods of time. Friendships will be abandoned altogether.
A lot of times, people that are blood ties or financial ties are the one thing that can keep people somewhat connected to people who are narcissists.
Dr. Sang Won Bae is an Assistant Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology’s Department of Systems and Enterprises, Charles V. Schaefer, Jr. School of Engineering and Science. Her research focuses on human-computer interaction, mobile health systems, and machine learning, with an emphasis on personalized interventions for vulnerable populations to promote health and safety. Bae talks about AI-powered smartphone applications designed to detect depression through subtle physiological and behavioural cues inspired during the pandemic to explore non-invasive identification mental health issues, particularly PupilSense, which analyzes pupil responses, and FacePsy, which assesses facial behavior markers including facial expressions and head gestures – for detecting depression in naturalistic settings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Assistant Professor Sang Won Bae. I wouldn’t have imagined this kind of development, but science never ceases to surprise me. Detecting depression through the eyes – this is fascinating. Has there been any precursor to this style of research using indirect measures to detect depression?
Dr. Sang Won Bae: While recent studies explored detecting depression using mobile sensors like GPS, it was the pandemic that motivated me to start this project. During that time, many of us were struggling with feeling depressed. It was difficult to stay focused, manage work, and even keep up with studying. As a professor, I had to transition to online teaching, delivering lectures through Zoom since nobody was allowed to come to campus.
All classes were conducted on Zoom. I asked my students to turn on their cameras so I could see their reactions. This would allow me to adjust the content, shift the topic, or add more comments based on their level of engagement and how well they were understanding the material.
But in reality, very few students turned on their cameras. Almost everyone kept their cameras off, leaving me to wonder, “What’s going on? Are they even listening?” It felt isolating. I was teaching, but it felt like I was talking to no one. As a teacher, I wanted to interact with my students. Still, I felt isolated, both as an educator and as a human.
So, I started wondering, “What’s happening when the cameras are off? How do they feel about the lecture?” I wanted to understand what was going on behind the scenes, especially during the pandemic. While I wouldn’t describe my own feelings as full-blown depression, I did feel down, with an underlying sense of sadness and isolation. In early 2020 – around January or February – I contracted COVID, and that experience reinforced my belief that there was much more to explore.
People were putting on brave faces, but I wanted to know: could we find a way to help students and others who were struggling? What was really happening behind the scenes? We were no longer physically interacting, communicating only through devices—computers and smartphones—not human-to-human interaction. That’s when I felt we needed to do something about it, which became my motivation behind this project.
Jacobsen: This personal issue became a professional area of expertise for you.
Bae: Exactly, and it’s clear there are limitations of the existing systems. For example, there have been studies using the Facial Action Coding System to detect depression severity or mood disorders, but most of them were conducted in lab settings. Typically, these studies involved recording interviews with individuals experiencing mental health issues to analyze specific features, or they used actors to mimic various emotions in order to collect data. While these methods can be quite accurate, they often overlook a critical issue from the user’s perspective: the stigma associated with being monitored under the guise of advancing computer vision technology.
Jacobsen: Why did you choose the eyes as a metric or marker for detecting depression? I assume it’s part of a broader spectrum, of course.
Bae: Yes, it’s not just about the eyes alone. Other facial expressions and physiological elements, such as the pupil-to-iris ratio, play important roles as well. For example, when you’re focused, your pupils tend to constrict. But if you’re distracted or not engaged, your pupils dilate. These subtle changes in pupil size, known as pupillometry, can provide valuable insights into a person’s mood or mental state.
The eyes are a particularly interesting marker because they are part of a larger set of behavioral and physiological phenotypes that can indicate attention, distraction, or even emotional states. The eyes not only reflect someone’s affective and cognitive status, but they can also hint at broader health conditions. For example, certain changes in eye behavior have been linked to conditions like high blood pressure or neurological disorders. While it’s not the eyes themselves that show these issues directly, the patterns of eye movements and responses can be used to infer underlying health conditions through careful analysis.
Jacobsen: How does combining the analysis of the eyes with facial expressions provide a robust metric for detecting depression? And what is the margin of error?
Bae: We’ve reported an error rate of less than 5%. Our system achieved an accuracy of over 76% using PupilSense and 69% with FacePsy, using rigorous cross-validation approaches. This means that when new, unseen data from participants is introduced, the algorithm can predict whether someone is depressed with 76% accuracy using PupilSense and 69% accuracy using FacePsy.
This is quite innovative because other researchers often use different sensing technologies, like activities and GPS, which can raise privacy concerns. That’s why we try to use just the smartphone without invading privacy. The system only triggers and collects data when users use their smartphones.
If you’re asking what specific signals indicate depression, there are many. We’ve found key markers such as head gestures, eye movements, and smiling behaviour. Our mobile application includes a range of behavioural markers, including pupil-to-iris ratios.
As for accuracy, we’ve introduced two main applications and have two more in development. Recently, we published papers on understanding human emotions and mood using facial markers. The model’s performance would improve if we included additional sensors like GPS, movement tracking, or other features. However, using multiple sensors requires significant computational resources, and it could be more scalable for everyday use, as most researchers or participants would need access to large computing systems they don’t have.
That’s why our open-source affective sensing framework will be scalable—not in the distant future, but right now. We’ve already shared the framework and application data on GitHub. Many other developers and researchers can build upon this work for future studies in mental health, eye diseases, diabetes, and using facial features to understand dementia.
Many other diseases can be detected, and this will be feasible.
Jacobsen: So, why the eyes? Why facial expressions? And why mobile?
Bae: We tend to make social faces and expressions when we meet people in person. We say, “Hi, how are you?” and smile. But when someone closes the door and looks at their mobile phone, they show a different side. They might browse, and we observe this shift – the change in their facial expressions and perhaps their mood when interacting with the virtual world through apps, search engines, and social media.
One interesting finding in our studies is that depressed individuals tend to smile more compared to healthy participants. It doesn’t seem intuitive at first, but this is part of the phenomenon of masking depression. We also noticed that, which we haven’t reported in full, depressed individuals were more likely to use social media, entertainment apps, games, and YouTube. They’re searching for something to entertain themselves, looking for fun, funny videos or other content to make them feel happier.
We are preparing follow-up studies to analyze app usage and to know more context about what people do when they feel sad or happy and how their mood changes would be ideal. Excessive use of social media can contribute to feelings of sadness or depression, especially when people compare their lives to the curated, idealized versions of others’ lives. Everyone seems to be happy, travelling, and enjoying life. This constant comparison can lead to a decline in mental health.
Jacobsen: Yes, people are curating an idealized version of themselves for the world to see, and others who view this may feel worse in comparison. There’s certainly a logic to that. The major benefits of this technology are, first, it’s cost-effective. Second, it can be implemented now. Third, it has reasonable accuracy. And fourth, it can be distributed globally as an app.
So, my main question is: if you’ve combined facial expression analysis with PupilSense for early depression detection, what other easy-to-measure metrics could be integrated into the same smartphone app further to increase the accuracy and robustness of early depression detection? Are you working on such developments? I’m sure you’ve thought about those.
Bae: Yes. If you’re asking about additional features, there is more we can explore, particularly regarding application usage. You mentioned curation, which refers to what users seek and how often they visit specific applications and content.
We are currently using Android application categories, and while we can’t always see the exact name of the app unless it’s registered, we can still understand if the app is categorized as entertainment, work-related, or GPS and navigation. It’s possible to analyze the relationship between the use of these different categories – productive apps, entertainment apps, and more – with their emotional state and depression. This virtual behaviour can give us insight into their mood, which would be useful for intervening and delivering specific content that could help.
However, it’s critical to understand that we don’t need to know exactly what they are reading or viewing. That would be too invasive. For instance, if an application knew exactly what I was reading, that would raise privacy concerns. However, knowing which category an app belongs to and how frequently users engage with it provides enough insight.
Think about Netflix, for example. They might want to know what users are watching and how they feel while watching. Our application can capture various emotions and sentiments, and the time of day or duration of app usage is critical. Understanding these patterns of depression could be key in developing a more innovative and preventative approach so we can identify when someone might need help before they realize it themselves.
Jacobsen: How can these apps be improved in their next iteration?
Bae: In the next iteration, the focus will be on improving our algorithm’s accuracy to obtain generalizability. We are working on validating the model further before moving into large-scale clinical trials with depression patients. So far, we’ve made significant strides by incorporating new sampling methods and optimizing features like sampling time and battery usage to ensure the app performs well in various real-world environments.
To make the app more scalable and generalizable, we’ve been having productive discussions with institutions like Johns Hopkins and MATClinics. However, we’re eager to collaborate with more medical researchers and experts (email: sbae4@stevens.edu) who are interested in joining us in expanding the app’s potential.
Looking ahead, accessibility is another key priority. We want to make the app more user-friendly, especially for people who face barriers to healthcare, such as immigrants, low-income individuals, and others who have difficulty accessing hospitals or clinics. Our goal is to empower them to take control of their own health monitoring and management before any negative consequences arise. I firmly believe early detection saves lives when proper just-in-time interventions are delivered.
Jacobsen: What were the hurdles in the full development of this app?
Bae: One of the major hurdles was the approval process. It took almost a year to get the research started, largely due to the extra precautions and considerations around potential risks during the pandemic. Another challenge was finding participants for the modeling process. Given the pandemic, it was difficult to recruit enough people, and passive sensing research can be inconvenient for users, as they had to keep the app running for a full month without deleting it. I’m incredibly grateful to those who participated, as their commitment made a huge difference. Even though the compensation was minimal, they believed in the value of the research and stayed engaged. I’m also thankful to the volunteers who helped with pilot testing, as their support was crucial in overcoming these hurdles.
Jacobsen: Who were important collaborators?
Bae: The person who contributed the most was, without a doubt, Rahul, a PhD student in our lab, who worked tirelessly on the development. I also want to mention Priyanshu and Shahnaj, our assistant researcher and volunteer, for their help. And of course, Professor Tammy Chung from Rutgers University, who I’m currently collaborating with on an NIH project, has been incredibly supportive and believed in the potential of this research. Most importantly, this project wouldn’t have been possible without the Startup funding support from the Department of Systems and Enterprises at our university.
Jacobsen: Dr. Bae, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Bill Allen has been living with prostate cancer since 2004, undergoing various treatments including surgeries, radiation, bone scans, and white blood cell transfusions. Prior to his retirement in 2013, he enjoyed a 40-year career with Travelers Insurance Company. Now, he fills his time with gardening, golfing, line dancing, and cherishing moments with his grandchildren and family. Allen spoke about his personal journey with prostate cancer, starting in 2003. Allen discusses his diagnosis, treatment, including surgery and radiation, and the challenges of clinical trials and medication. He emphasizes the importance of healthcare equity, particularly for African Americans, and highlights his participation in trials despite concerns, showing the value of patient representation and awareness in medical research.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, Bill, should we start with the personal aspects or clinical trial information? Let’s start with your journey. What is your personal experience as someone living with prostate cancer? How did you find out? How has it progressed? What is the process like for men who may not know what to look for?
Bill Allen: Let’s begin in 2003. I had an annual exam. It’s important, especially after the age of 50, to have an annual check-up, which for me includes a digital rectal exam (DRE) of the prostate gland performed by my general practitioner. During that exam in 2003, I was advised that there was something slightly unusual about my prostate. My doctor wanted me to follow up. This was toward the end of the year, around October or November 2003. In 2004, I scheduled an appointment with a urologist who conducted further tests, including a biopsy. About a week or so after the biopsy, I was informed that I had prostate cancer.
Another indicator was my PSA level, which had risen to 12.5. That was another signal to my physician that further investigation was needed. My Gleason score came back at 7, with the highest score being 10, indicating that the cancer was moderately aggressive. So, I had to make some treatment decisions. In 2004, I was advised about the various treatment options available for prostate cancer at that time.
Not understanding what prostate cancer entailed, all I heard was the word “cancer,” and it hit me hard. I was overwhelmed with distress, depression, anxiety, and concern. It was traumatic. I remember going home that day; my wife, an educator, was at work. I have two sons—my oldest was in college in 2004, and my younger one was also away at school but had come home. The news just knocked the wind out of me.
Later, my wife and I met with the urologist, and they walked us through several treatment options. There was a range of therapies, including brachytherapy (seed implants), radiation, a prostatectomy, or a combination of radiation and hormone treatments. It took some time, but by May, I decided the best option for me was to have the cancer surgically removed from my body. I underwent a prostatectomy.
Back then, the procedure was more invasive than it is today. I like to say they “deleted” you. It’s a serious surgery. Nowadays, it’s done robotically, requiring just a small incision to remove the gland, and patients recover much more quickly. But in my case, they had to perform traditional open surgery. I stayed in the hospital for several days and went home with a catheter and medication. A home healthcare nurse visited to ensure my recovery was progressing well. The healing process took about eight weeks, and that’s the summary of my journey.
That was in 2006. I returned to work, and around 2010, my PSA rose again. The urologist, who was my primary caregiver at the time, had been monitoring me with periodic PSA blood tests. When my PSA began to rise, they recommended radiation. This meant they needed to radiate the prostate bed, which is the area where the prostate gland had been removed. They believed that some cancer cells were still present in that area.
I received treatment at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Massey Cancer Center in Richmond, Virginia, where I was living at the time. I underwent about 36 radiation treatments.
Jacobsen: Thirty-six treatments? How often were those?
Allen: Yes, 36 treatments, roughly one per week. During this time, I continued working, traveling, and flying for my job. I would come back home on certain days, often on a Thursday or Friday, to receive the radiation treatment. Fortunately, I experienced no major side effects and could continue working throughout the treatment.
During this time, one of the clinicians asked if I wanted to participate in a clinical trial. The study involved testing several drugs to determine if they could mitigate any side effects, lower my PSA, or prevent the spread of cancer. I considered it, and they provided me with all the documents and consent forms. I reviewed everything with my wife since this was all new to me. I’d never participated in a clinical trial before.
I had some reservations, especially being an African American man. I had attended an HBCU, Xavier University of Louisiana, in New Orleans, and I was aware of the troubling history of clinical trials that adversely affected African Americans. We all know about cases like Henrietta Lacks and others who were unknowingly subjected to experimentation.
Jacobsen: Given that history, what made you go through with it?
Allen: Despite my concerns, I decided to participate in the trial. I wanted to do everything I could to prevent the cancer from spreading, and I also saw the potential benefit for others if the drugs proved effective in treating prostate cancer. I started taking two drugs alongside the radiation. After my 36-week course of radiation ended, I continued in the clinical trial, going back to the clinic regularly for blood tests and check-ins with the clinician about how I was feeling and any side effects.
For the first few months, everything seemed fine. But about six months in, I started feeling off—exhausted and tired when I normally wouldn’t be. I shared this with the clinician and eventually decided I didn’t want to continue with the trial.
They said, “We’ll take you off. Come back, and we’ll still monitor you for a few visits. After a while, you should feel okay.”
And that’s what I did. So that was my introduction. The hardest part was making the decision and then dealing with what might have been a side effect, but I didn’t want to continue. I’m not sure whether that combination of drugs had any long-term effects on my condition. That was in 2010.
I’m still working, but my PSA rose again. I kept talking with my urologist, who was still my provider. That’s when I started hormone treatments, specifically with a drug called Lupron. It reduces the testosterone in your body, so the cancer doesn’t have the fuel to grow.
However, Lupron has other effects. It’s almost like medical castration, as it impacts your testes, testosterone levels, and muscle mass. It drastically reduces your testosterone, changing your physical makeup. I was getting the shot every three months, and it worked. Since 2010, I’ve been on hormone therapy. Over time, I moved from getting the shot every three months to now getting it every six months. Since moving from Virginia to Maryland, I now see a local urologist who manages my treatment.
Up until 2020, my PSA remained stable. It’s not at zero, but at about 0.1 or 0.2, which is very low and good. That means the cancer hasn’t metastasized or spread to other organs. Prostate cancer tends to attack the lymph nodes or bone marrow, which is where it does the most harm.
So, I’m trying to get my chronology straight here—I’m still on androgen therapy, and now I’ve been advised to consider oral therapy. There are two drugs I could take that would help minimize the rise of my PSA and specifically target the cancer proteins. At first, I didn’t want to take the drugs because their side effects seemed worse than the remedy itself.
I looked at one drug and read the detailed information about medications—the side effects, how to take it, when it was developed, and data from the trials. When I read about these oral drugs, I focused on how many people like me were in those studies.
If a study included 1,200 participants, the information would tell you what happened to those men. Some got sick, and some even died, though not necessarily from the drug but from the cancer itself. However, I didn’t see many participants who looked like me, and that made me hesitant about taking the drug because these drugs are a lot more powerful. So, I decided to wait and see instead of starting the oral therapy right away.
But eventually, I had to come around and make the decision to take oral medication to help with my prostate cancer. As of today, I’m on oral chemotherapy, and I still take my androgen or Lupron shots. I take four tablets a day. The cost of the oral medication is about $15,000 a bottle, which makes each pill worth around $120.
That was another reason for my hesitation. I’m retired, and while I have retirement income, covering that cost significantly impacts my life moving forward. It becomes a situation where you ask yourself: do you choose to live to die or die to live? I guess that’s the analogy I would use if you’re debating whether or not to take a drug.
Fortunately, the urologist and the practice I’m with have a unit specializing in writing grants. They help patients access funds to cover the cost of treatment for certain high-cost diseases. The funding is based on the disease, and they’ll cover some of the cost. I’m a Medicare recipient with a supplemental insurance plan, which helps, but my monthly copay was still close to $2,000.
That’s where the PAN Foundation came in. I learned about PAN, and they agreed to cover the cost of the medication for a year. You have to reapply for the grant every year, but I’m thankful to have a provider that offers this kind of service to its patients. And I’m also grateful for organizations like PAN, whose mission is to help individuals with diseases by covering the cost of medications that would otherwise be unaffordable.
With PAN’s help, I’ve been able to manage. My cancer did metastasize, and it spread to a lymph node in the upper lateral part of my body. In 2020, I had additional radiation to address the spread, and that seemed to work. It reduced the cancer in the lymph nodes, and I haven’t had any further problems.
The major issue I haven’t faced is that it hasn’t spread to my bones, which is a good sign. So, the decisions I’ve made about my health, along with the advice of my doctors, seem to be working. They provide much guidance, and I listen—when I say “sometimes,” it means I don’t always want to jump into the next suggested treatment immediately. There are some really exciting advancements in the treatment of prostate cancer in men.
There are many drugs available in the marketplace, and as your cancer progresses, you can move to the next stage of treatment. The goal is to keep your PSA from increasing and prevent the spread of the disease. So, when I say I listen to my doctors, they offer me various therapies. Still, it’s my choice to determine if I need that therapy at a particular moment. That’s always my question—do I need to do this now?
Where do I need to be in your health situation to start on a new plan or a new drug? Is there a point in the future where it might be too late if I wait too long, or could I delay starting too soon? These medications can significantly affect your physical health and well-being.
These drugs can make you tired, cause headaches and fatigue, and, in some cases, even lead to heart attacks or other cardiovascular issues. So, I want to be very careful about the approach I take. If I can manage my health as it is right now, that’s what I feel comfortable doing.
But as long as my doctors stay on top of things—they run CT and bone scans—they’re ensuring my bones are strong. I’m on calcium, vitamin D3, and other supplements to help support my immune system. I’ve taken a real interest in maintaining good health because I feel good.
I don’t have any pain from the prostate cancer. I can do my gardening, I can do my line dancing, I can go on trips, and I can spend quality time with my family and grandkids. That lets me control my feelings about what I can and can’t do, if that makes sense.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. Now, let’s focus for a moment on an important issue. Studies show that around 90% of people of colour in the United States trust healthcare providers. Still, participation in clinical trials is much lower. Can you share your thoughts on this and your reasons for encouraging more participation, especially within African American communities?
Allen: There are several factors at play. The first is perception. Many people don’t have a positive reaction to clinical trials. I had a positive experience with clinical trials. Most men—around 83%—view clinical trials as something positive. So, the general perception is good.
However, when it comes to participation, people want more information. In a study conducted by PAN, 58% of men of color said they would participate in clinical trials if they knew more about them. The survey also revealed that motivation plays a key role. For me, part of my motivation was helping others. Similarly, in PAN’s study, 40% of men of color said they would participate because they knew it could benefit others.
Trust in the provider, trial representation, and awareness of how clinical trials can break down barriers are critical. In the African American community, about 34% said they would participate, which is encouraging. They need to know when, where, and how it’s done.
The PAN Foundation has been working on this through its initiative. They’ve developed an “Opening Doors to Clinical Trials” website with a trial finder. Patients can search for clinical trials based on their specific disease and location—down to the zip code. Universities or clinics often run clinical trials, so it’s important to make this information accessible.
They’re run by different disease organizations. As I mentioned earlier, I have a brother, a nephew, and a cousin—she’s female—who participate in clinical trials for a degenerative disease called ataxia, which runs in my family. This disease originated on my mother’s side. Four of her siblings, including herself, passed away from this disease.
I have two brothers who have ataxia. One is in a clinical trial, and the other has passed away. So, I can see the value of having representation in clinical trials, even within my family. My family members’ motivation is to help any other relative who may face this disease in the future, which is crucial because this condition is genetic.
Awareness is key here—knowing where to find information is essential. From what I’ve learned, the PAN Foundation has prioritized patients in its efforts, ensuring equitable access to healthcare for individuals with various conditions.
Jacobsen: Bill, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Allen: Thank you. I appreciate being part of this. Well, is that enough information for you?
Allen: Yes, this is good. Including a personal story is quite nice. It adds a dimension to the discussion that makes it relatable.
Jacobsen: It’s a long personal story, starting back in 2003. That makes it even more helpful. Because for me, I didn’t know the journey could be so prolonged. I thought it was a matter of surgery or treatment, and then it’s over. But now I see how much it has evolved. Your story also reduces the stigma around trials and doctors, especially when you mention how surgery techniques have advanced—from being invasive to now being laparoscopic That’s helpful.
Allen: Yes, it’s quite an improvement.
Jacobsen: Thank you again.
Allen: You have a good day.
Jacobsen: You too. Take care.
The PAN Foundation’s recent survey, conducted in collaboration with The Harris Poll, reveals a strong interest in clinical trials among underrepresented communities, including people of color and LGBTQIA+ individuals. The data highlights that while 83% of people of color and 86% of LGBTQIA+ respondents view clinical trials positively, a significant gap exists in participation rates. A major barrier is that many have never been invited to participate, despite showing interest. The survey also found that most participants trust their healthcare providers, but only 22% of people of color and 20% of LGBTQIA+ individuals have had discussions with their doctors about clinical trial opportunities.
In response to these findings, the PAN Foundation has launched the Opening Doors to Clinical Trials initiative, designed to increase diversity and participation in clinical trials. This initiative offers resources like the ComPANion Access Navigators, who provide personalized support, and an online trial finder to help individuals navigate the process. By addressing barriers such as medical mistrust and logistical challenges, the PAN Foundation aims to create a more inclusive environment for clinical research, ensuring underrepresented populations have the opportunity to participate and contribute to advancements in healthcare.
For anyone ready to take the next step in learning more about clinical trials and how to get involved, visit the PAN Foundation’s Opening Doors to Clinical Trials initiative at clinicaltrials.panfoundation.org.
Tone Southerland is a healthcare IT expert and the current PCC Domain Representative to the IHE International Board. With a career spanning over two decades, Tone has been deeply involved in shaping healthcare interoperability, particularly through his work with IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise). His expertise lies in navigating the complexities of healthcare data integration, policy, and security. Tone is passionate about ensuring that patients and providers have seamless access to accurate and timely health information. He has been a key figure in developing frameworks like TEFCA, and is committed to transforming healthcare quality through technology.
Southerland discusses the complexities of healthcare interoperability compared to other industries like finance. Southerland explains the challenges, including the human aspect of healthcare, complex workflows, and the role of government policies. He highlights the importance of healthcare data accessibility, security, and privacy, and then touches on HIPAA’s role in safeguarding patient data, Medicare fraud, and the efforts to protect against misuse. Southerland emphasizes the potential of interoperability in improving patient care and enabling whole-person care by integrating diverse data points. He also discusses the significance of the Connectathon and the potential of healthcare IT advancements.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How are you today?
Tone Southerland: I’m doing great. I’m excited to chat about IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise).
Jacobsen: Excellent. So, the first question is: Why is the healthcare industry slower in adopting advanced technologies compared to sectors like finance?
Southerland: Yes, that’s a great question, and it’s one that’s been asked a lot. Healthcare is different from other industries, and there’s much more complexity involved. Three key factors make it challenging.
First, there’s the human aspect of healthcare, which is difficult to codify into data that can be easily transferred and consumed electronically between systems. For example, when I visit my doctor, we have a relationship andhey know things about me that are difficult to express in coded medical terminology. This aspect of care is represented as “narrative text” in clinical notes. While there are ways to exchange that narrative, the human element will always remain essential in healthcare.
Second, the workflows in healthcare are more complex than in industries like banking or insurance. In those industries, the workflows are relatively finite. The tasks are straightforward, whether transferring money, buying stock, or granting account access. In healthcare, patients move between vastly different care settings. For instance, if you go for a radiology appointment, the workflow is controlled: you have an initial consultation, undergo scans, wait, and the radiologist reads your scans. But afterward, you’re referred back to your primary care doctor or to a specialist, and they continue interpreting the results, explaining them, and possibly sending you elsewhere for further care. Your healthcare journey might also transition to home care, adding even more complexity. That’s what IHE focuses on—standardizing workflows across these diverse care settings.
Third, policy plays a big role in how quickly healthcare interoperability progresses. Government policies and incentives encourage electronic health record (EHR) vendors and healthcare providers to exchange data and participate in electronic data collection. In some cases, there are penalties for not moving quickly enough. While these policies are complex, much progress is being made.
Jacobsen: Why is interoperability such a pressing issue in today’s healthcare landscape?
Southerland: I’ve been working in this field for about 18 to 20 years, and I was excited when I started—I’m still excited about it now.
I saw much opportunity then. I see many opportunities now. But I also see that through my lens as a technologist, not a clinician; clinicians I engage with still need help with some of the same issues when accessing data. They may have access to data, but how well can they use that data?
This year, a study published in the National Library of Medicine examined this issue. They surveyed about 2,000 physicians. Of those, 70% indicated they have access to healthcare data. Still, only about 23% said they have easy access, and only 8% said they have very easy access to the right data. So, they may have access to data, but do they have access to the right data in a way that they can use it effectively to improve health outcomes for their patients?
That’s a big challenge, and why healthcare interoperability is so important. IHE—Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise—is working to solve this problem. Our goal is to get the right data to the right doctor for the right patient at the right time, with the relevant level of detail, so that they can provide better care. Additionally, part of any data exchange is security and privacy.
Jacobsen: How do security and privacy concerns factor into this?
Southerland: It’s huge. Suppose you’ve followed any cybersecurity news over the past 10 to 20 years. In that case, you’ve noticed that security threats have only worsened. On the bright side, defenses have also improved, so it’s always a constant battle—what technology can we implement to protect data from hackers, and how do we stay ahead of new hacking methods?
This is an ongoing challenge. When discussing security and privacy, it’s important to distinguish between them. Privacy is about consent—do I consent for someone to access my data, and to what degree? Consent can be granular. For example, I might only want to share information about my allergies but not my mental health data. I may choose to share it with one doctor but not another. I might allow my mother access, but not my spouse.
Consent can become complicated. IHE provides mechanisms to manage consent through various consent-based profiles, but that’s only one piece of the puzzle.
The security piece is about protecting the data itself. This includes encryption algorithms that safeguard data stored on servers. That technology has been around for a while and continues to evolve. What has become more prevalent in the last 10 to 15 years is the HITRUST framework, which requires healthcare organizations storing protected health information (PHI) to implement policies, procedures, and processes to protect that data. But there’s a human element as well.
It’s not just about having the right encryption; it’s about training your staff. Are they following least privilege principles? Are they adhering to OWASP’s top 10 security guidelines? There are many moving parts, but frameworks like HITRUST and SOC2 help ensure that organizations working with sensitive data protect it adequately.
Jacobsen: What are the risks of a data breach? When those instances happen, how do doctors, patients, and companies react to them? How do they manage damage control? Could you provide a real-world example of why this is important rather than just listing ways to protect oneself?
Southerland: Yes. HIPAA oversees all of this.
HIPAA, which became law in 1996, introduced regulations that set limits on how patient data should be protected. Provider organizations are required to report breaches, especially when a minimum threshold of patients’ data is involved. This is a deterrent because organizations don’t want to be on the front page of the news for a data breach. These breaches are published on the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) site. Then, news agencies pick them up and share them further.
This incentivizes organizations to be on top of their security measures. As interoperability has advanced, there’s been a focus on limiting the shared data. For example, does all the data need to be stored or shared? Or do I only need to share the relevant information for the care I’m receiving? Going back to consent, patients may want to say, “I don’t want to share my mental health data because that’s sensitive. I only want to share the rest of my clinical record to receive help with my cancer, diabetes, or other conditions.”
Jacobsen: Should we be concerned about having all of our healthcare information in the cloud?
Southerland: That’s a nuanced question. Yes, we should always be concerned about our banking information, healthcare data, etc. It’s the reality of the world we live in. It’s stored on a server whenever we put something on social media.
Privacy today is very different from 80 or 100 years ago. Back then, having someone photograph you could be considered a privacy violation. Today, the game has changed.
We should have faith in the servers storing our data in the cloud. The four major cloud providers—Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and AWS—all have HITRUST certification as part of their solutions. So, when healthcare organizations leverage these cloud platforms, they incorporate these rigorous security programs into their overall security policies.
There’s even an argument that data is safer in the cloud. Cloud providers have dedicated teams to monitor and protect the data from hackers. Running your own servers—renting space at a local facility and managing the servers—takes extraordinary work, specialized skills, and knowledge. Knowing that I can rely on a provider like Microsoft Azure or AWS, knowing they operate under HITRUST guidelines, gives me more peace of mind as an IT professional working on healthcare solutions involving protected health information.
Jacobsen: How does IHE’s work impact healthcare providers and patient care?
Southerland: There are a lot of different use cases here. We’ve discussed providers having the right information at the right time. Doctors often discuss relevant information—they don’t need too much information. Too much information is almost worse than not having any at all. Often, clinicians will push it aside and start over because it’s information overload.
They need to get an understanding of where their patient is. Not only do they need to understand the clinical aspects of the patient, but this is also where we’re starting to see interoperability in IHE help. We need to start looking at other buckets of data, such as social determinants of health. For example, what social factors are happening in the patient’s life? Do they have financial or other daily stresses?
We know that stress, in general, can negatively affect health. Are they in an abusive situation? That’s going to impact their overall health. Do they lack access to exercise facilities or healthy food in their neighborhood, especially in impoverished areas? These factors play a strong role in a person’s overall health. IHE and other standards organizations focus on social determinants of health and other types of healthcare data that contribute to whole-person care.
Jacobsen: What is North America Connectathon Week, and why is it significant for healthcare IT?
Southerland: This coming year it’s happening in Toronto in February. It’s a week-long event where healthcare IT vendors come together. These vendors provide solutions for doctors, provider organizations, and hospitals. During the week, they test interoperability between their systems based on IHE profiles. I’ve been attending these events for 15+ years.
It’s a robust testing environment. There are testing monitors who validate system transactions, and there’s also great interaction between vendors. It’s the best quality assurance (QA) software testing lab globally for interoperability. Solving problems through emails or scheduling conference calls can take weeks or months. At Connectathon, everyone is in the same room. You have focused time to solve the same problems in minutes to hours.
There’s such a strong sense of collaboration at Connectathon Week. You have companies that are normally competitors working together. That’s the goal—we’re looking past market competition because if we can’t make our systems interoperable, we all fail. There isn’t one big health record system that will take over the country or the world. We all have to interoperate, and that collaboration is key to success.
Southerland: There’s also much other content there that talks about healthcare events and initiatives, like TEFCA (Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement), a national health information network initiative in the U.S. Connectathon Week is also international. For example, we have members and participants from Europe – France, Germany, Japan, and others – sharing their initiatives so we can learn from other parts of the world.
I’m in the U.S., so that’s where my primary focus is, but I want to know what’s happening globally because we are all trying to solve many of the same problems.
Jacobsen: What is the Connectathon seal? How does this have significance for military vendors?
Southerland: The Connectathon seal has been in the works for quite some time. It’s a recent certification that we’ve just introduced. If you look back at the history of IHE Connectathons, which started in the early 2000s, they began as part of a grassroots testing initiative to bring systems together, as we discussed earlier. Over the years, the events have become more robust and have moved toward a more formal conformity assessment approach.
In IHE we actually developed a conformity assessment scheme about 10 years ago. I’ve always seen this program as a sort of stepping stone to the new Connectathon Seal. It incorporated ISO certification processes, and the Seal builds on that. The idea was to give more substance to interoperability testing
The Connectathon seal takes this to the next level. It gives vendors something to put on their product that says, “I went through a rigorous interoperability testing process. I did all the required things. I passed the tests, and my system is ready to go.” This allows vendors to make a statement “about their product. When a provider organization, such as a hospital, is purchasing an EHR, lab system, or other healthcare technology, they can have confidence that this system has base-level interoperability capabilities.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on how IHE interacts with healthcare providers, patients, and business organizations to overcome barriers in data sharing while ensuring security and privacy, as discussed earlier? You mentioned that it’s not just data in the cloud that’s stolen but data in general, especially in today’s information era.
Southerland: There are many ways we could approach this topic. One of the biggest challenges is consumer access to data and data access for treatment. HIPAA regulations define different “purposes of use.” For example, HIPAA provides treatment-based access to data, as well as access for research and other healthcare industry reasons.
Consumer access, on the other hand, is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC governs consumer apps, while HIPAA governs healthcare apps. There are different actors in this space, and they face barriers. The barriers faced by a healthcare provider differ from those faced by an individual patient or a large organization.
A lot of work has been done to bridge the gap and protect patient data. As a patient consumer, this ensures that I can’t just do wildcard searches and get a content match by guessing someone’s name or address. Much discussion and work has been done within the U.S. national exchange frameworks, like CommonWell Health Alliance and TEFCA to address this.
Scaling back to the broader part of your question, IHE does well in partnering with local and national governments. We have something called national extensions built into our Profile templates. These Profiles are implementation guides for healthcare standards. To clarify, IHE doesn’t create healthcare standards; We provide implementation guidance on how to use existing standards to solve interoperability problems.
We approach this from an international perspective, but the national extension sections within the Profiles allow for further customization based on a particular region’s needs. For example, due to different governmental policies, France might use different healthcare code sets than the U.S. – IHE allows for that flexibility through national extensions. We’ve also created regional deployment domains that oversee deployments in various countries.
Here in the U.S., we have a group called the Sequoia Project, established as the RCE—recognized coordinating entity—for TEFCA. I’m sorry; I know a lot of acronyms.
Jacobsen: That’s right. IT folks love acronyms.
Southerland: I spent a lot of time programming and grew up in that world. Now I’ve moved out of it, but I still need acronyms. The Sequoia Project is responsible for delivering the TEFCA program in the U.S., and they partner with IHE USA and IHE International to help with that. TEFCA (Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement) is the Federated National Exchange Program, and it’s all built on IHE profiles.
Other elements are incorporated, but the foundation is IHE profiles. Within TEFCA, there’s something called Qualified Health Information Networks (QHINs), which basically operate as health information exchange (HIE) networks participating within TEFCA. So far, seven organizations have been designated to serve in this role. These networks undergo rigorous testing and certification processes to ensure they’re able to safely and effectively exchange data with other QHINs. They have participants that share data through their QHIN, and the QHINs acts as a gateway to exchange data across the broader ecosystem.
The system-to-system and gateway-to-gateway connections are all built on IHE profiles. So, to answer your question about how IHE helps with this, we partner with regional and local deployments to promote and advance the use of our profiles.
Jacobsen: Now, this isn’t necessarily positively framed; it is neutrally framed with the appropriate acronyms, initialisms, organization names, and real-world examples. What about the entities that are predatory when it comes to user data, organizational data, or patient data? What are the most significant and dangerous predatory actors in this space?
Southerland: That’s a good question. I’m considering how to phrase it carefully.
There are organizations out there looking to misuse healthcare data for all kinds of fraud. This is common knowledge. For instance, Medicare fraud is a big issue. In some cases, claims are filed, and payouts are made for deceased patients. Fraud like this happens.
Trust frameworks are among the mechanisms that IHE and others have built to protect against such fraud. Carequality is a great example. When you sign up to participate in Carequality, you become a network steward with legal obligations to protect the data. Given the context of this interview and its focus on IHE, that’s probably as far as I want to go, but it’s an important question.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts or feelings based on today’s conversation?
Southerland: Today I think we should have discussed the significance of healthcare interoperability. We touched on it briefly, but I’d like to expand on that.
Jacobsen: What is the potential now, and why must we focus on it?
Southerland: First, it’s important to understand that it has much potential. I would have said the same thing if you had asked me 15 years ago. But what does that mean? It means there are still many challenges to overcome in healthcare IT and interoperability. We’ve already overcome a lot, but there’s more to go.
I break it down into three stages. The first stage is building systems that can collect data. The second stage is integrating those systems—data from disparate systems and systems from different vendors and companies. In the third stage, we analyze the data, apply big data concepts, and use it on a population health scale. This is where we get into clinical research, curing diseases, and identifying trends over large populations. We can use that information to set the next generation of best practices in healthcare.
In the next 10 years, I believe we’ll see a major focus on the whole person. We talk about social determinants of health, and that’s one piece of it, but more is needed as a patient; more is needed to know what medication fits what clinical problem. I need to factor in all the other elements of my life. What’s my diet like? What’s my environment? My doctor might ask me questions during my visit, but the system must be more comprehensive and cohesive to collect and use all the facts relevant to my care. You go from one specialist to another—an orthopedist and a chiropractor—and get different answers. It leaves the patient confused about what’s best for them.
Interoperability with all that data together in a way that makes sense to the patient. It will enable patients to have better conversations with their doctors, and it will enable doctors to make better assessments because they’ll have access to the relevant data. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve in healthcare interoperability: it’s having the right data at the right time for the right patient, ultimately to improve health outcomes.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Adam Potash is a trained chef and health coach passionate about transforming lives through sustainable weight loss and nutrition. A graduate of Johnson & Wales University, his journey began with a love for cooking and evolved into a mission to help others achieve optimal health. After culinary success working with elite clients, Adam pursued health and nutrition studies, creating The Approach, a sustainable weight loss program. Combining intermittent fasting, balanced eating, and emotional support, Adam has helped over 10,000 clients lose weight and improve their health. His goal is to empower others to lead healthier, happier, and more confident lives.
Potash shares insights into his journey from culinary school to promoting healthier lifestyles. Inspired by witnessing his grandmother’s health decline due to poor nutrition and excessive medication, Potash emphasizes the transformative power of food. He highlights the Mediterranean diet, intermittent fasting, and prioritizing fresh, simple ingredients as keys to sustainable health. Potash criticizes food fads and restrictive diets, advocating for lifestyle changes over quick fixes. Working with athletes and private clients, he focuses on balanced meals that fuel performance. His advice includes avoiding grazing, eating nutrient-dense vegetables, and cooking with love to enhance health and enjoyment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Adam Potash or Potash. How do you say that properly: “Pot-Ash”?
Adam Potash: You said it right the first time.
Jacobsen: You have this orientation toward health, nutrition, and weight loss. So, how did your grandmother’s story of illness build up and lead to this particular concern about health and weight loss? Now, that one’s straightforward. So, the term illness can be ambiguous.
Is it cancer, or is it an improper diet? Therefore, is the person physically ill due to lifestyle habits, or is this normal aging combined with other factors? Present that story to me because I think you’re onto something.
Potash: Right, it could be a combination of a few different things—age, illness, and poor nutrition. Listen, in my field, we tackle everything from a nutritional aspect first and foremost.
And yes, you’re right. This is what prompted my journey toward getting healthier myself. Seeing my grandmother deteriorate, for lack of a better word, with one medication, then another, and another to counteract the previous one became this big rabbit hole. I was younger at the time—I must have been 17 or 18 years old when she passed—but I saw this whole thing transpire and said, “There’s got to be a better way.”
Shortly after she passed, I enrolled in culinary school because I wanted to do something related to food. That eventually transitioned into cooking healthy food and cooking for pro athletes and others. I wanted to make everyone around me healthier, and the best way to do that was through food. That happened over a few years—cooking, cooking healthy, and eventually helping people transition to better health.
Jacobsen: Quick question on personal interest stuff.
I worked in restaurants. I used to work in four simultaneously, then did janitorial work overnight for two. Those were seven-day weeks, putting in nine hours a day. It was an intensive time, but I got to see a lot of different styles in how people run restaurants—from pubs to more bistro-style places and an Italian-Jewish-owned and run restaurant.
It could have been more fine dining, but it was aimed in that direction. So, where did you get your experience in terms of seeing a variety of restaurants? How did you observe operations, the quality of materials used to prepare meals, and their health standards? What did you see that made you think, “I could use those ideas a la carte and develop my program”?
Potash: Yes, my career started as a server, working in the front of the house. But I always had this crazy interest in the back of the house.
The short story of how it all transpired is this: I went on a boating trip with the chef of a place where I was a server. It was called Gordon Biersch.
It was a brewery. The chef asked a few of the servers if they wanted to go on a fishing trip. I said, “Sure, I’ll go.” It was my day off. I caught the only fish that day, and it was this grouper.
It was about a 24-pound grouper, right? All day, we’re out there—nothing, nothing. Finally, we’re about a mile from shore, so I hook this grouper.
Of course, whoever’s closest to the line gets it. I fought it for about an hour. The whole scene was there, and we returned to the restaurant. The chef cooked it up in five, six, or maybe seven different ways. From that moment, I was hooked. That was my turning point when I decided, “I’m going to be a chef.”
From catch to feast in a matter of an hour was unbelievable. That started everything.
And, listen, going back to your question about seeing the operations of things—nothing was ever healthy. No matter where you went—this is going back 20 or 25 years—nothing was ever healthy.
When I started cooking for myself, I limited so many ingredients. I cooked. Julia Child has a quote—I’m butchering it, but it’s something like this: “If you cook simple and basic, everything is going to be good.” That’s basically what it comes down to.
If you cook with good ingredients—fresh ingredients—it’s going to come out well. You don’t need to complicate things. That’s the lesson I learned from a young age and as a young chef: make things simple and make them taste good.
Jacobsen: What makes a simple and good meal?
Potash: It sounds like a different question, but we have so many options for food in North America—particularly in the United States—ranging from processed food to unprocessed food, high-calorie food to low-calorie food, nutrient-dense food to not-so-nutrient-dense food, and so on.
How do you consider this when you’re running a restaurant? You’re saying, “This is the menu. This is the schema for what I want people to consume at my business or restaurant.”
I will give you the cheesy, cliché answer: it honestly comes down to love. If you’re putting love into your dishes, it will come out good.
I still cook for parties, private clients, and events. My ingredients and meals involve less than 30 different steps. I use five steps, but those are done perfectly—they’re seasoned right, taste good, and that’s it. If you can do that, you can’t lose.
Jacobsen: What are those five steps?
Potash: Well, obviously, it starts with good, fresh ingredients—whether it’s freshly caught fish or something similar.
Then, it’s about cooking it properly. For example, I cook a lot pan-seared and then finish it in the oven. Not to get too technical, but I do that because I want a nice sear and crust, and then I want it to cook fully from a convection style.
Cook it all the way through or cook it from a broader perspective rather than just using direct heat. That’s how I do most of my cooking. Letting things rest is also very important. Many people cook and then want to eat immediately, but you must let things relax for a moment.
Always have a good sauce. If you ever come to one of my parties or to someone I’ve cooked for, they’ll tell you That sauces are legit. A good sauce doesn’t have to be unhealthy. It could be something like chimichurri, pesto, or similar. A nice sauce complements the dish beautifully.
And honestly, the last step is presentation. Everybody eats with their eyes first, so you must put a little effort into how the food looks.
Jacobsen: Is that called plating? Is that the proper word for it?
Potash: Yes, plating—exactly. I always go with a nice white plate. In my house, we have clean, white plates. It’s like a blank canvas.
Jacobsen: So, let’s say you have this simplified method. When looking at the North American palate and the ingredients available, what do you consider some of the more nutritious meals? How can people incorporate that into healthier living, even if it’s not necessarily a formal meal plan?
Potash: Yes, so we all know by now that the Mediterranean diet will be the healthiest, right? You can’t get away from that concept. It’s about using local ingredients and focusing on a pescatarian-type diet.
I base my cooking on this. I was born and raised in Miami, South Florida, so we always had fresh, local fish—whether it was mahi, grouper, snapper, or something else. That’s the healthiest way to start meal prepping or planning.
It doesn’t have to be fish, but locally sourced-ingredients are always better.
Now, intermittent fasting—I follow a pescatarian Mediterranean diet and practice intermittent fasting. The baseline is a 16-hour fast daily, though I can go up to 20 hours depending on the day. I’m not too strict about it; it’s more of a range.
Jacobsen: What benefits do you see from intermittent fasting?
Potash: Oh my gosh, the sky’s the limit—it offers endless benefits.
It can improve your skin, clear up acne, make your hair fuller, and strengthen your nails—those things people first notice. But it doesn’t stop there. It also provides digestive benefits and helps women dealing with menopause, menopause-related weight gain, and PCOS.
Truthfully, the list goes on. Doctors are now even using intermittent fasting to treat cancer patients because it generates new, fresh cells in the body and removes old, damaged ones.
The benefits—if you’re not intermittent fasting—you’re honestly not feeling or looking your best. It gives your body the rest that it needs.
Jacobsen: Now, when two individuals look at diets, there will be skeptics and even cynics. How do we separate good diets from faulty ones? For instance, some diets are more about branding, like an all-red-meat diet, compared to the Mediterranean diet, which intuitively makes more sense because it has more balance overall.
As an expert, I believe the Mediterranean diet provides a better presentation, covers more food groups, and has a broader palate. How do you ensure there’s enough rigour to prevent a diet from being just a fad with yo-yo effects and short-term results?
Potash: What I always recommend—and for anyone thinking about a diet—is to look at how restrictive it is. For example, you mentioned the carnivore diet or the keto diet. Those immediately become extremely restrictive. Anytime something is highly restrictive, it gets categorized as a “diet.”
Usually, those are short-term and sustainable. You might see results immediately, but sustainability is where it fails. That’s when you get into the yo-yo diet effect—yes, it worked, but you can’t maintain it forever.
On the other hand, when we talk about intermittent fasting or the Mediterranean diet, these are lifestyles, not diets. They’re not restrictive. For example, I go out to eat; I enjoy food with my friends, buddies, and wife—we’re always eating. But it’s good food, healthy food. I never feel restricted or deprived by what I’m choosing.
I’m not putting myself in a bucket of, “Oh my gosh, I can only eat meat,” or, “I have to avoid carbs completely.” That’s not sustainable long-term.
Jacobsen: Could someone potentially do a short-term radical shift and then transition to something more sustainable? Say they want rapid changes first but then move to a longer-term solution. Is that possible, or is that too unreasonable for most people?
Potash: Yes, so I was going to say—it’s generally unreasonable if you do it yourself. When you’re on your own, you become your critic, and there’s no accountability piece to it. You start making up your own rules as you go along.
I’ve been doing this for over 15 years, and that’s what I see people do. They make up their own rules. For example, I know people who do alternate-day fasting. They start applying new rules like, “Oh, I’ll do it tomorrow,” or, “I’ll do it the next day,” or, “I didn’t do it today, but that’s okay.”
There needs to be more consistency and a base to work from, and that’s where it falls apart.
There’s no baseline. So, we teach the 16:8 method because it is the most consistent thing you can do. It’s not depriving or restrictive. You’re eating within an 8-hour window, which you can do daily.
Another great thing about an intermittent fasting schedule is that you can shift it. Some days, you might do 16 hours; other days, you might do 18. You can adjust it according to your schedule. This makes it much more of a lifestyle than a strict, harsh diet.
That’s my approach—set a baseline as a floor, then give yourself a range. If I can go a little longer the next day, no problem. Have an extra cup of coffee and keep going.
Jacobsen: What do you find people typically lack nutritionally—both macronutrients and micronutrients?
Potash: As an executive chef who runs restaurants, I can tell you that people often need to catch up on the basics. Running a restaurant is no easy job—it’s consistently high-stress. Transitioning from front-of-house to back-of-house surprised some people because you deal with difficult customers in the front. Still, the back-of-house can be even more intense. Every position, aside from prep work before service, is constantly stressful.
Jacobsen: So, what macronutrients and micronutrients are people typically missing when looking at nutrition? How can they fill those gaps?
Potash: Listen, we’ve gotten so far away from vegetables. Even when we consume vegetables at restaurants, it’s often not in their purest or healthiest form. The trend now is Brussels sprouts, right? But those sprouts are usually deep-fried and covered in something unhealthy.
We’ve moved so far away from basic, nutritious vegetables. Often, vegetables are treated as an afterthought—the last thing people eat. If you’re at a restaurant, you’re typically filling up on steak or mashed potatoes first. If there’s room left, maybe you’ll eat the asparagus.
My rule of thumb is to start with the good stuff—the more nutritious items. Fill up on those first, then move on to the other things. Save the carbs for last, so you’re not eating as much. Carbs, for the most part, have very little nutritional benefit.
This doesn’t mean vegetables must be plain or steamed, but we must return to basics. Everyone knows about the trend of fried Brussels sprouts. My advice is to go back to simple, clean vegetables. That’s one of my biggest tips when it comes to nutrition.
Jacobsen: What’s the most extreme individual food fad you’ve seen outside of fried Brussels sprouts?
Potash: Food fad? That’s an interesting one. Food fads are everywhere. Fried calamari has been around for quite a while now, especially with all the different sauces—it will never go away.
There are so many unhealthy food fads. For example, many steak places pop up everywhere, and it’s the same no matter where you go. There’s no creativity anymore when it comes to these steakhouses.
I have four different steakhouses within a three-mile radius of my house. And they all serve the same thing—you get your asparagus, filet, and potatoes. Nothing stands out or feels creative anymore.
There needs to be more creativity, at least where I live in South Florida. People in the kitchen seem afraid to try something new.
Jacobsen: When cooking for athletes and celebrities, how does that differ in terms of their requests per meal or meal plan? How different are they from the rest of us?
Potash: Not much, believe it or not. These athletes—I don’t want to say “basic” because that sounds negative—but they are basic because they focus on health. They want food to help them perform better on the field, on the pitch, or wherever they compete.
They’re open about food. They want something simple and convenient and don’t want to use their brainpower worrying about nutrition. They leave that to someone like me.
My job is to ensure that they’re getting well-balanced meals that provide everything they need to fuel their bodies. I’m not measuring macronutrients to the gram, but I understand how to create meals that include a variety of nutrients—the full”rainbow” of food.
They want to focus on their performance: running faster, hitting harder, or excelling in their sport. The last thing they want to worry about is their food. They leave it to professionals to ensure they’re eating right.
Honestly, I haven’t encountered too many picky athletes. They want to know they’re eating well and fueling their bodies.
Jacobsen: So, what do you see as the major health issue for North America? Many of your clients have lost weight significantly since starting this meal plan and program. Beyond the obvious issues of being overweight or having a higher-than-healthy BMI for their height, what do you notice coming up?
Potash: Listen, we’ve been getting more overweight year after year for the last 100 years. A few factors contribute to this.
Number one is breakfast. Kellogg’s introduced breakfast as a marketing concept, adding a meal we weren’t eating before.
Then, if you go to the grocery store these days, everything is snack-sized—snack this, snack that. We’ve become tremendous grazers.
The problem is that our stomachs aren’t designed like those of cows or horses for daily grazing. Our bodies want to digest food and then rest, but we’ve completely eliminated that rest period.
Now, you eat breakfast, go to the office, and someone hands you a treat and grabs it. Then someone else has a snack at their desk, and you eat that too. It’s this constant grazing.
People think, “Oh, it’s not much. It’s just a bite.” But that grazing raises your insulin levels and doesn’t allow your digestive system to take a break.
This constant grazing leads to kidney, liver, and gallbladder issues—it overworks our entire system.
If people need to make one major health change, stop grazing. Eat your meals within a specific time frame and then be done.
Jacobsen: Are there any other areas we missed? We covered everything from restaurants, diets, food trends, and health concerns.
Potash: Yes, you touched on a lot of different points. I appreciate that.
Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on the interview today?
Potash: No, this was great. Whoever your readers are, it’s good they’ll get a little education from this. It’s great.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Adam, thank you so much for your time.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Updated December 26, 2024.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
The conversation explores definitions and perspectives on God, blending theology, science, and philosophy. Scott Douglas Jacobsen prompts dialogue on God’s definition and role. Rick Rosner critiques traditional omnipotent concepts, suggesting godlike civilizations within the universe’s informational structure. He highlights evolution, rejecting omnipotence while speculating on advanced civilizations’ roles and time perception. Rosner argues logical principles govern existence, leaving little room for traditional deities. He finds comfort in cultural symbols like “office Jesus,” juxtaposing technology and spirituality as modern sources of solace. Donald Wayne Stoner builds a theological framework on primordial logic, equating God to the logical foundation underpinning math, quantum mechanics, and the universe. He blends Christian theology with scientific rationalism, asserting God’s omnipresence as “conscious logic.” Stoner explores humanity’s role as co-creators, emphasizing ethical, logical, and emotional dimensions of divine understanding. He critiques reductionist models, advocating for a nuanced reconciliation of science and faith. Claus Volko sees God as an abstract metaphor for the unknown, contrasting with Stoner’s detailed theological model. Volko suggests dualistic forces of life and death shape existence. Tianxi Yu incorporates Eastern philosophy, linking Taoist concepts of emptiness with the unknowable nature of God. Yu critiques Western rationalism’s limitations, advocating for embracing paradoxes and interweaving scientific insights with spiritual wisdom. The dialogue reveals shared themes: the limits of human understanding, evolving definitions of divinity, and reconciling ancient wisdom with contemporary science. Questions persist about consciousness, morality’s origins, and reconciling diverse philosophical traditions. Ultimately, participants offer diverse but complementary perspectives, enriching the discourse on humanity’s search for meaning and the divine.
Keywords: Evolution and teleology, God and intentionality, Love and trust dynamics, Principles of existence, Scientific and logical perspectives, Stability and order in relationships, Willful creator concept.
Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What seems like the easiest first definition of God to you? This can include a pivot into an inability to define or an ineffability, too.
Rick Rosner: The first step, therefore, is to posit that God, understood as an omniscient, omnipotent being, might be impossible. I doubt such an entity could exist. The next step is to hypothesize what could exist. We know we exist.
We know the universe exists and is approximately 13.8 billion years old. It is even older in the context of potential multiverses, and there may be no limit to the size or number of possible universes. Within these vast possibilities, beings and civilizations of unimaginable age could arise. They could achieve extraordinary levels of complexity, power, and information processing capacity with enough time.
Thus, one could imagine entities or civilizations that may exist or have existed with a scale and power that would appear god-like to us. Within our universe, human civilization is about 10,000 years old. However, life could have emerged on another planet a billion, two billion, or even five billion years ago. An old civilization would have an immense head start, potentially becoming god-like after everything it has learned over billions of years.
Donald Wayne Stoner: 1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
Therefore, by inclusion (the effective minor premise):
God is also: That which also brought us into existence.
Therefore, by causal hierarchy (minor premise again):
2) God is also: That which is responsible for our personal existence.
More figuratively, God is our primordial “parent.”
To focus this definition more precisely, I must admit that all of my beliefs (about anything) are based onat least one thing which I take on “faith” alone.To explain what I mean by this, there is a question which I have frequently asked my professional associates (usually physicists, engineers, and programmers):
“Do you know how to construct a logical proof for the validity of logic itself?”
Invariably, they have been surprised that they don’t happen to know how to do that. Logic seems to be something which normal people just seem to take for granted; so they never question it.
Is Logic really valid? How might we test it? In very general terms, there are really only two possible ways:
A) Logically: This one would be circular, hence invalid.
-or-
B) Illogically (or alogically): This simply avoids validity.
So, Logic cannot be proven to be valid.
Therefore, we must assume that Logic is either:
C) An Illusion (Any idea is as good as any other idea)
-or-
D) Primordial (It’s The self-existent source for all proofs)
I have chosen to believe that:
3) logic is primordial
Logic happens to be one of those things which, as I emphasized above, I take on faith alone. Choosing (D) over (C) seems like an obvious choice to me; and having now made that choice, I have committed to the position that Logic must be primordial (3), and that it is, therefore, self existent.
Having thus accepted “primordial logic” (3), I can, next, derive:
4) Mathematics
A quite detailed and formal logical proof for the validity of math, has been provided by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. More detail can be found here:
An extremely informal “proof” (it’s very brief, illustrative, and also a cheating* short-cut) is presented here:
Nearly all computers could, in theory, be constructed from logic gates alone. (In principle, they could be constructed using nothing but combinations of 2-input NAND gates.) So, anything those computers can do, could, in principle, be done with logic alone. This includes just about anything which is mathematical.
The key takeaway, here, is that “math” is just a derivative of “logic.” Nothing “new” has really been added (other than the additional complexity which is incurred with increasingly complex, but still completely-logical, procedures).
Given “math” (4), we now have all we need to construct:
5) Quantum Mechanics
“Real” particles do some very strange things. In fact, what they do is so weird (e.g. one single particle existing in two different places at the same time) that it is frequently claimed that the actual “physical particles” themselves, don’t really need to exist, nor does the “space,” through which those particles move. The math, alone, is all that is really necessary. Seriously!
For example, see this source here:
“The only way we can explain this pattern is that each particle is a sum – a superposition – of two paths, one going through the left slit and one through the right. So why not just say that the particle goes both ways? There are two reasons I don’t like this phrase. One is that a superposition of two paths is not something in space. It belongs in an abstract mathematical structure called a Hilbert space. It just has no analogue in physical space. This is why we can’t find good words to describe it. It doesn’t belong in the world we know; it’s something else entirely.”
Warning: The link below (to the above quotation) may only allow one viewing before it blocks further access.
Back when I was an undergrad physics student, one of my professors “joked” that the “particles, themselves” probably didn’t really need to exist, that the strange math alone would be enough to construct our world, exactly like we see it; but that “pretending” there were actual particles, just made things impossible to imagine.
I didn’t believe him at the time, but, like my professor, I eventually chose to “believe” that the “irrational appearing theoretical particles” were less “real” than the math, which correctly predicted the behavior, which I could actually observe in my experiments.
The key takeaway here, is that “this world” is made of nothing more than “quantum mechanical” rules, which, in turn, are constructed from math, alone; which, in turn, is nothing more than “logic.” Nothing “new” has really been added (other than the additional complexity which is incurred with increased stacking of operations, all of which are still completely-logical, procedures).
And given that both “logic” and “math” have always been operational, everywhere in the universe, ever since the “Big Bang” we have a solid foundation for Quantum Mechanics. So, given “Q.M.” (5), we should now have everything we need to “construct” (bring into existence):
6) The Physical Universe
Here is where it starts to get fun: Starting with the Universe, and working backwards, down the causality stack, we have:
The physical universe (6) …
Comprising Q,M, (5) …
Comprising Math (4) …
Comprising Primordial Logic (3) …
… taking us all the way back to our starting definition:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
From this, it appears that:
7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).
Here, both God (1), and Primordial Logic (3), are defined as the single primordial sourcewhich produces the universe.
We could try to avoid this conclusion by asserting that “God produced Logic,” but then we would have to ask whether this was done: A) Logically -or- B) Illogically. So, we still seem to be at the primordial bottom here.
Alternately, we could argue that both God and Logic exist side by side, on the same, primordial, bottom level. This brings up the need for a “context” in which the two could interact, which, in turn, brings up the need for an additional “logical creator” to create that extra context, ad infinitum.
Evidently, we are stuck with God (1) sharing the exact same identity with Primordial Logic (3). This causes a problem: Since our normal understanding of the term “God” is so very differentfrom our normal understanding what of “logic” is, this may require a bit of explaining:
In the argument above, we presumed that “logic” had existed, and operated, everywhere in the universe, during the billions of years preceding the very first sentient creatures. Although we normally presume this to be the case, have we tested it?
Can “logic,” itself, operate in a complete vacuum? … or in the absence of a physical mind (maybe either organic or electronic)? What kind of working mind could possibly have been present to have performed the necessary “math” to cause the Q.M. event responsible for the “Big Bang?”
Although there are several theoretical models for what might cause consciousness to happen, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_consciousness, the traditional, most common models, claim it is emergentfrom matter (when sufficient complexity is present). There is a large amount of weird speculation involved in how or why this is supposed to happen; but, so far, no experiment has shown this to be workable.
However, there is a new, cutting-edge, scientific field of study, involving theoretical Q.M. models, which challenges this old, and, so far, non-productive, “consciousness” model: it’s called “Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)” in the above link.
Over the last few decades, I have been following the work of Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, who, together, have been developing the science behind this model.
Instead of accepting the theory that awareness emerges from complexity in matter, their experiments suggest that, in our real world, “consciousness is a fundamental property, which is part of the logical and mathematical structure of the entire universe.” **
Therefore, our logical conclusion (above): (That God (1), and Logic (3), are both valid descriptions of the “creator”) starts to sound less like an absurdity, and more like the first connection between otherwise-sterile science, and the “spiritual existence” which we all know we experience (made famous by Descartes’ famous realization: “I think, therefore, I am.”)
I, personally, believe that this new theory of consciousness will, eventually, replace the present standard scientific model. In any case, for the the present discussion, I will be using it as my working theory.
It has not escaped my attention that this theory brings “a universe filled with otherwise-sterile logic,” into close alignment with the more traditional descriptions of God (1 & 2).
Let’s see where this working theory takes us:
Starting with the above “backwards” causality sequence:
The physical universe (6),
Comprising Q,M, (5).
Comprising Math (4),
Comprising Primordial Logic (3)
… but working in the normal, forward direction, we now have:
In the beginning was primordial, self existent, Logic (3).
This Logic (3) caused Math (4), which caused Q.M. (5),
which created the physical Universe (6) (caused by 1 & 3,
and actually comprising 1 & 3), and also “us” ourselves
(who seem to share logical reasoning, and likely also self
awareness) with That which must also potentially assume
responsibility for our actions (2).
I find it interesting that: by critically examining the validity of Logic itself; and by translating the original Greek Biblical word “λογος” (logos) as “Logic” (the way Plato and Aristotle probably would have used that word — instead of how most modern theologians usually translate it); and by taking it in combination with the (above) cutting-edge theory, we are now able to verify, logically, some critical parts of the first three verses of St. John’s Gospel.
For comparison, here is how Young’s Literal Translation of those three verses would have read, if he had translated ” λογος” as “Logic” instead of as “Word”:
In the beginning was the Logic,
and the Logic was with God,
and the Logic was God;
this one was in the beginning with God;
all things through him did happen,
and without him happened
not even one thing that hath happened.
So, in conclusion, my working definition for God is:
(1) That which brought our universe into existence,
and by inclusion, also ourselves into existence;
and therefore also, by causal extension:
(2) That which is responsible forour personal existence.
(More figuratively, God is our primordial “parent.”)
or:
(3) Primordial Logic
One last thought:
St. John’s Gospel is likely to be worth some further study.
Claus Volko, M.D.: For me the term God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand. Anything that can’t be explored by the scientific method can be attributed to God. What exactly God is, remains unknown. We can only speculate about it.
Tianxi Yu: In Western religious perspectives, God is considered omnipotent, and all things are created by God. However, from the viewpoint of Chinese culture, humans evolved naturally, and the concept of God is a figment of the imagination that arose from people in the old world trying to understand unknown phenomena. Personally, I am inclined to believe in the existence of an omnipotent God, but God is not considered supreme. When you describe an object, it acquires certain attributes. If it has certain attributes, there must be corresponding opposite attributes. For example, if you define Audrey as “beautiful,” it implies that you think other women are less so. But if the median level of female attractiveness is closer to Natasha’s, Audrey would not be defined as “beautiful.” Therefore, when you define God as omnipotent, God essentially becomes a slightly more powerful human, indirectly acknowledging that God evolved from humans. Thus, the supreme existence I believe in is the indescribable “emptiness,” which transcends God. It cannot be defined or described.
Jacobsen: For you, does one seek God, or does God seek them, or both (… or neither)?
Rosner: I see the universe as an information-processing entity. Quantum mechanics suggests that the universe operates on probabilities and incomplete information.
On average, the universe increases in complexity over time, leading to a greater amount of information and order as time progresses. The emergence of beings within the universe might be connected to this increase in order. I am proposing that sufficiently long-lived civilizations may become involved in the universe’s workings.
With that in mind, our civilization may find out if these ideas hold any truth in the future. A future human, transhuman, or posthuman civilization will have to decide whether to attempt to contact other civilizations which might be found closer to the galaxy’s center. At the same time, perhaps contradictorily, I think civilizations generally have more important endeavours than seeking out others. This challenges many alien invasion scenarios that assume aliens would come to Earth because they need something. That is improbable because any civilization powerful enough to reach us would be powerful enough to create whatever they need near their location, even simulating other civilizations if necessary.
Therefore, there is no compelling reason to seek out and conquer other civilizations. The only reason to contact them would be to gain knowledge, assuming they are more advanced than us. More advanced civilizations would tend to be non-malevolent. Admittedly, this is speculative thinking on my part. I am exploring these ideas as they come to mind.
Why would they be interested in us? If they are powerful enough to do whatever they want relative to us, they likely do not care about what we do. That is my guess—that civilizations tend to gravitate towards the galactic center. Or, as we are observing in an early form, much of a civilization’s focus is on information processing. I suspect that if a civilization wants to engage in this on a vast scale, it might be more efficient to do so closer to the center of a galaxy.
If I were to construct a scenario, it would involve a civilization facing decisions about whether to seek out other, more advanced civilizations in the hope of gaining knowledge from them. The counterargument is the risk of being wrong and facing potential destruction if they view us as competition. This answers your question.
Stoner: Following from my understanding of God: Probably both.
But speaking as a tiny piece of God’s entire universe,
rather than as its omnipresent creator (“conscious logic itself”)
I doubt my efforts can hold a candle to God’s.
Volko: People seek God. They want to be good people and obey God’s laws, and since God has never come down to earth and told people what his laws are, they have to find out for themselves.
I don’t think that God seeks people. In my opinion God is so powerful that he can easily observe anybody.
Yu: As I mentioned in response to the first question, the God has evolved from human. From a human perspective, it is humans who seek God. However, as a deity, God would also desire more individuals to evolve into divine beings. Therefore, God communicates the principles of the universe to humanity through natural phenomena. Those who can decipher these divine hints often become gods themselves in the future. Thus, the relationship between God and humans is one of mutual pursuit.
Jacobsen: What seems like the first reasonable realization in sensibly engaging in this search of God?
Rosner: In my view, the initial realization is that one must consider the fundamental principles of existence, which are sufficiently durable and inviolable to exclude the idea of a transcendental God. By “transcendental,” I mean a God that exists beyond the principles and laws of existence itself.
Suppose this were 500 years ago, when we lacked a comprehensive understanding of the universe. In that case, proposing entities made of something greater that transcends earthly limitations might have seemed plausible. However, this is the present day. We now have a deeper understanding of what matter is made of. We have a concept of the universe’s shape and the distribution of matter within it. We also have insights into the universe’s physics and some metaphysical aspects. This does not leave room for beings that transcend the foundational principles of existence.
I mentioned earlier civilizations that could be hundreds of millions of years old. Based on what they learned over such immense periods, they might have developed entirely different modes of existence. For example, we live in linear time, but they may have discovered ways of existence that defy our current understanding of reality.
It is unlikely that civilization could figure out how to exist in two-dimensional time instead of one-dimensional time or something along those lines. However, it is possible. Regardless, no matter how advanced, any civilization would still be bound by the principles of existence, such as non-contradiction. That is the first realization.
In searching for God, one must set up the limiting case, which, in my view, is that an all-powerful or all-knowing God cannot exist. An omnipotent being did not create us. This is easier to read as an initial premise. To add a supplement, we may have been created by a not-all-powerful being.
Some thinkers, perhaps more than one, argue that this reality could be a simulation. If it is a simulation, an entity must be behind it. You then face two choices: this world is naturally emergent and evolved or a simulated one. Even in the case of a simulation, the being who created it is not omnipotent and is subject to the same fundamental limitations that apply to existence.
Stoner: The first step (above): Realizing that we take logic on faith.
The next step: Deriving a definition for God (3 & 2 & 1).
The next step: Understanding that God is omnipresent, sentient logic.
The next step: Presuming that, very likely, God is also seeking us.
This present step: Engaging: This shouldn’t be overly difficult:
We just ask God for whatever help we might need.
The only catch is that it’s unlikely that a seeker would be able to hide any questionable motives they might have.
Volko: (No answer).
Yu: The first reasonable realization in the search for God is that God communicates with humanity through various natural phenomena. For instance, the observation of apples naturally falling led to the discovery of gravity, the shape of mushrooms inspired the invention of umbrellas, and financial market indicators are used to predict economic trends. The advancement of human civilization to its current state is largely due to highly intelligent individuals who have interpreted these divine hints and guided the evolution of our society. Therefore, in our quest to findGod, it is crucial to humbly recognize that everything is under divine guidance. We must contemplate these divine signs to draw closer to God.
Jacobsen: Does God, even if distinguishing types or levels of epistemology & ontology, seem knowable in principle or unknowable, as such?
Rosner: Now, for the question of whether God, even when considering different types or levels of epistemology and ontology, seems knowable in principle or unknowable: Science, over the past 500 years, has been remarkably successful at discovering and explaining phenomena in a mathematical and somewhat mechanical way. We understand how things work and can express them mathematically. Still, this understanding often comes at the expense of exploring metaphysics—the “why” behind existence.
We now possess enough information and theoretical knowledge about the universe’s mechanics to address metaphysical questions. The “why” of existence is closely related to the “how,” and I believe the principles of non-contradiction in existence are such that they allow for the possibility of being. Anything not prohibited by the principles of existence can, by definition, potentially exist.
In terms of epistemology—how we acquire knowledge—it is possible to build an understanding based on these foundational ideas. While effectively explaining the “how,” science often stops short of explaining why the universe exists. Concepts such as an unstable null state, potentially loaded with energy that compels it to expand into existence, are considered. However, even in standard Big Bang theory, deeper “whys” remain unanswered. So, yes, we can explore the “whys” behind the “hows.”
Stoner: God can choose to be: knowable, unknowable, or even both simultaneously. We can observe how this might happen with a test case: Consider this quotation by Physicist Stephen Hawking:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just
a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire
into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical
model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a
universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go
Is the source of Hawking’s “fire,” an “unknowable” and mysterious enigma? Or is it blatantly obvious? This was, obviously, a “choice” which Dr. Hawking had to make while he was studying this evidence.
This same choice is also ours to make whenever we study the same universe Hawking once did. I, personally, take the same position taken by Paul (the Apostle): God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV)
Volko: I don’t think anybody really knows what exactly God is.
Yu: God is, in principle, knowable because He has evolved from the pinnacle of humankind, representing the culmination of human wisdom. Thus, humanity can understand God through observation and reasoning. The indescribable “emptiness” is an existence that transcends God, one that cannot be described or defined.
Jacobsen: Any overarching questions for the group or hopes for this discussion as we proceed?
Rosner: As for questions for the group or hopes for the discussion, God, as traditionally understood, is under scrutiny due to scientific progress. The more science explains, the less we rely on divine or supernatural explanations. In the U.S., the concept of the traditional Christian God is also challenged by the behaviour of certain groups, such as some Christians aligning with MAGA, who often act in unchristian ways. Younger generations are leaving the church in large numbers.
My question, then, is how does the concept of God survive into the future, and do we even need God for humanity to thrive? The idea of a godless, cold universe without inherent morality—where everything happens by chance—can be a grim prospect. Yet, I believe there is an inherent drive toward order and value within the universe. How can some form of morality persist and be justified in the future without resorting to existential absurdity? The notion that the universe is absurd and that we must impose our values upon it feels bleak to me and not entirely accurate.
Stoner: I’m looking forward to what I expect to be a fascinating discussion!
Notes: * This “cheating” involves a slight-of-hand switch between the classical, time-dependent, clocked sequences, which are used by a computer, and the very different time-independent processes used by a human math student:
The computer, when fed the “command” N=N+1, mindlessly fetches “N,” from a memory location, increments it by “1,” and then moves the new value back into the same location from which it was originally fetched. (For simplicity, here I have omitted the middle step, where the computer “compiles” (translates and reorders) “N=N+1” to: “N, get, 1, add, N, put”)
The student sees the “equation” N=N+1, as a simultaneous, unsolvable, contradiction. (For simplicity, here I did not attempt to track the thoughts which may or may not have happened in the student’s mind.)
In spite of the differences, this computer example illustrates the causal chain, from simple logical components, to complex mathematics.
** Among the participants in this new field, is author, and Nobel Prize winning physicist, Sir Roger Penrose (who together with Dr. Stephen Hawking, predicted of the existence of Black Holes).
Also among these participants, is Penrose’s associate Dr. Stuart Hameroff, (an anesthesiologist, and physicist, who has made some fascinating discoveries regarding apparent “intelligence” in microscopic and molecular biochemistry). I’m anticipating that either these researchers, or possibly those who follow them, will eventually shed more light on this question.
A video of a discussion with Penrose and Hameroff can be found here:
Here are a few time markers for some interesting and significant statements:
0:23:55-0:25:07 Penrose says that “non-life can be “conscious.”
0:40:20-41:44 Terms: “Proto consciousness,” objective reduction (OR), and “Orchestrated OR.
1:16:55 Briefly discusses the six major competing theories of consciousness
1:36:00 Hameroff says that, “Consciousness is actually a fundamental property; it goes all the way down to the structure of the universe.”
Yu: God x Science, Emptiness x Buddhism.
Jacobsen: A varied style of talking about God and diverse presentation style. But they are in character! So, patterns are emerging. How has your personal view of God changed over time if at all?
Rosner: When I was a little kid, I assumed I believed in God, but as I grew older, I started reading physics books—at least introductory ones like Time-Life Books, The Universe, not advanced physics books but ones aimed at the general public. I was reading these books by around 1968 or so, maybe 1970. That was when the Big Bang theory was becoming widely accepted.
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. By the late 1960s, the Big Bang theory had largely been established as the leading cosmological model. I took that as my framework for understanding the universe.
Of course, I had questions, the kind a child might have—like what created the thing that the Big Bang originated from? But I wasn’t considering those questions in terms of God.
I attended Sunday school, but I don’t remember ever believing in the traditional depiction of God as an old white man with a beard and flowing robes. That concept didn’t resonate with me. I didn’t start seriously contemplating the metaphysics of God until my early 20s, and even then, only sporadically.
When I considered the structure of the universe, I might occasionally entertain ideas that allowed for the existence of God. However, those thoughts never lasted long before I found inconsistencies or logical flaws. I distinctly remember being in my college cafeteria during these moments. I did a lot of thinking over meals because I ate frequently—about seven meals a day—just trying to bulk up. I worked as a bouncer and wanted to build muscle, so the cafeteria became a place for eating and reflecting.
One time, for about 10 minutes, I considered that mystical phenomena might fit within the rules of existence. But I quickly dismissed the idea while eating red Jell-O, fried chicken, or mulligatawny soup. This dish combines leftovers from previous meals with broth.
Aside from those fleeting moments, I’ve consistently believed that the concept of God doesn’t align with the principles of existence as I understand them. The universe doesn’t require an omnipotent creator in the background.
Simply put, my views on God haven’t changed much in decades.
Donald Wayne Stoner: Like everyone else, I started life at a very young age, with virtually no understanding at all about anything (religious or otherwise). It would be fair to say that everything I now believe is a result of change since that time. Also, back then (several years after WWII), topics like religion and politics were considered to be very much more private than they are today. It was also generally believed that it was not expedient to expose young children to that sort of subject matter. This may have retarded the accumulation of religious opinions in my development.
However, from the beginning, I was a curious child (a real troublemaker, and also an “escape artist” in training). Disassembling the latches on my crib was the first step toward enlarging my world. Protecting me from accidental injury, soon became a full-time job for my mother. Fortunately, she had the required skills: Her previous work experience had been as a cyclotron operator at a military base in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; so keeping me alive until adulthood was within her capabilities.
My father and mother met at a Church in Tennessee, while he was temporarily stationed at that same base. Later, he was transferred to Los Alamos, to help Robert Oppenheimer with his part of the same project. After the transfer, my parents continued their courtship by mail until the end of the war. (They were both the sort of people who might have expected troublemakers for children, and also the sort who might have once caused trouble for their own parents.)
After the war, they married and started a family. Of course we all attended Church. My sisters and I were exposed to what was, at that time, typical for religious instruction: dumbed-down, preschool-level, Sunday school. I learned to sing songs with mysterious phrases like, “Little ‘once’ to him belong,” and “I will make you fishers ‘Amen’,” (while wildly swinging open safety-pins tied to strings taped to dowel sticks, for “fishing poles”).
During this time, I was told that someone called “God” (or maybe “Jesus”) had made me (and everything else). I also remember having the vague impression that “God” was significantly bigger than my parents. None of this bothered me too much. It made sense because, by this time, my mom had showed me how stuff like crayons, scissors, tape, and glue, all worked. I’d also watched my dad make things in the garage. I figured I understood how things were “made” well enough.
When I wasn’t “learning about God” in Church, or disassembling my crib or playpen, I was usually disassembling my toys, my sisters’ toys, or other things around the house, to see how they worked. The gears, levers, shafts, and wheels all made perfect sense. (The occasional negative reaction from my sisters and parents was somewhat harder to understand.)
The very most fascinating thing I ever encountered was well beyond the reach of my exploratory capabilities, and it did not seem to be mechanical at all. I remember, at about the age of two or three, staring out through my own eyes, at nothing in particular, and thinking how very strange it was that I could perceive the world around me, and how strange it was that I was aware of my own existence. In this case, there was something different about the “device” involved; it wasn’t just more complex; it seemed to operate on a completely different principle – one that I still needed to understand.
Of course I didn’t stay three forever. By about the first grade, something had changed: I had tried inviting Jesus into my heart. No one had asked me to do it; in fact, I don’t remember anyone ever suggesting that it was a thing a person could do. In Sunday school we kids were all in the middle of singing a song called, “Come Into My Heart Lord Jesus;” and for some reason, I just decided it would be cool if I tried really meaning the words while I sang them – so I did – and He Did. I won’t try to explain how I knew. Any string of words I could possibly chain together would fail to catch the experience.
Shortly after that, I started having questions: First, I happened to notice that the Church and the school disagreed on how long it took God to create the universe. I asked my dad, and he told me that my grandpa (Peter W. Stoner) had written a book that explained how the Bible had originally been written in an ancient language and that it had not been translated perfectly. I said OK and went on with my life, completely missing out on my first possible crisis. (In hindsight, it appears that my grandpa was also a troublemaker, but one who “rocked a larger boat” than anything I had yet attempted.)
That single question had been answered, but the mystery of my self-awareness was still a problem. The Church called the missing element “soul” or “spirit,” but merely giving it a name didn’t really explain it; so I kept searching.
One day my Dad brought home a microscope, and we grabbed a cup of water from a stagnant pond (which looked like a good source for microscopic organisms). I spent some time watching those tiny transparent critters wiggling around in that little drop of water, hunting for food, and just exploring their world. I announced to my Dad that those critters appeared to be aware they existed! He smiled, and nodded in agreement, but neither of us understood how that was possible. They each had only one cell; and that cell wasn’t a brain cell, or even a nerve cell! I still didn’t know how a “soul” or a “spirit” worked, but I then had the impression that something very much like it was present, even in microscopic critters.
Years later, I remember viewing a microscopic time-lapse movie of a single cell dividing. The resolution was good enough that I could see the double set of chromosomes being pulled away from each other, by their middles, into the two separate sides of the dividing cell. I wondered how the process worked, and how it was able to make sure that each half of the cell got a complete set of the chromosomes. This was another puzzle for which I had no answer. (More recently, I watched a high resolution computer video of the same process, where the viewer could watch the individual microtubules rapidly groping around, each trying to locate the exact chromosome they were seeking; it still looked completely unbelievable.)
(These microscopic observations were, of course, quite similar to those which also caught the attention of Stuart Hameroff M.D. and started him down the path which eventually brought him into contact with Sir Roger Penrose — as I mentioned in the first round of questions.)
By junior high school my Dad’s engineering company had a small desktop computer which I learned to program. This expanded my world in a completely new direction — opening a door to a new world of invisible and complex electronic processes. In addition, my relatives started getting me books on computers and electronics for Christmas and birthday presents. My hobbies all began focusing on computer electronics.
Also about this same time, I complained to God that His Bible was not really the right kind of book: It was simply too long, and it was also way too archaic sounding. I suggested that I could do a better job, and that maybe I should rewrite it for Him. Sometimes God doesn’t bother dealing with my silly complaints, but this time I got an immediate reply. Although it came instantly, in a single “flash,” it will take a few words to spell out the “text” of the general idea here:
God: “Gee Don, that’s a great idea! Say, maybe you should try reading it first. That way you’ll know what parts need trimming and changing. OK?”
I was now on a mission and ready to start! Also at about that time, my mom brought home a copy of Kenneth Taylor’s newly published “Living Letters.” (Paul’s Epistles, paraphrased into modern language.)
It took reading about two of Paul’s letters before I understood the “practical joke” God had pulled on me. Over the next few years, I followed Taylor’s progress as he translated the whole New Testament, and then the entire Bible. But, by then, many excellent modern translations had become available.
Although I do explain the Biblical content to others in my own words (as I promised I would do) I no longer anticipate that I will ever be replacing the Bible in any sense.
In particular, one of Martin Gardener’s Scientific American magazine columns, titled “Machines That Learn” caught my attention, because I thought “learning” might have a connection to awareness. I started spending most of my time designing different kinds of “learning” computers, still hoping to figure out how my own awareness worked.
By high school, I knew, in theory, how to build a conventional working computer, one transistor at a time; by college, I had a good start on actually building one; but by that time, I understood the machine well enough to know there was no “ghost” anywhere, in it — nor could there be. I could see for myself that computers couldn’t possibly “think,” they just blindly “did.”
Since I had done well on a state-wide high school physics competition, I chose physics for my major in college. This was where I was finally introduced to the real “ghost in the machine” which I had been seeking. It turned out to take the form of quantum mechanics. I still don’t have have answers for every question I’d ever asked, but I’m no longer particularly worried about those questions which still remain.
By that time I was a fairly opinionated and outspoken Christian. I was also considering going into the ministry, instead of into science or technology. All that stopped me was that the Church didn’t really seem to want anything to do with my non-traditional ideas; but the gatekeepers of science and technology did want my skills – particularly my computer skills. (At that time, microprocessors were just beginning to hit the markets, and very few schools were turning out graduates who knew how to design with them or to program them.)
So, I supported myself, and a newly acquired wife (we celebrated our 50th this year), and our growing family, with my scientific and computer skills, while, every chance I had, I taught, wrote, and lectured, on how the faulty understandings in “Christian” teachings needed to be identified and corrected. If anyone is interested, some my opinions are presented on my web page here:
That link will take you to my thoughts concerning: the creation (Genesis 1), the rest of the book of Genesis, the first Exodus from Egypt (there was also a second one), the various theories of Evolution (including my own unique thoughts), Jesus’ 70 AD return, and a timeline to fit it all together, as well as to the other sorts of mischief with which I have become involved.
Evolution alone is sufficiently interesting to spend some time on it here, since both Rick Rosner and Tianxi Yu brought up “emergence” and “evolution.” It is especially significant here, because my views on this subject have, themselves, undergone some “evolution” of their own during the years I have been studying the nature of God and His creation.
There are presently two competing scientific “Theories of Evolution” which are in opposition to each other. An explanation of sorts is presented here:
Here’s the problem: Each position presents evidence which falsifies the claims of the other.
In more detail: Darwin’s theory does not predict the sudden leaps which are seen in the fossil record. Its theoretical basis – random mutations and survival of the fittest – predicts that change will occur by very small steps, and that it will occur more rapidly in larger populations than in smaller ones. The leaps which are seen in the fossil record are sufficiently large that some scientists (most notably the late Stephen Gould) have suggested that most evolutionary change must take place quickly and in small populations, where it would not be expected to leave much evidence.
It is easy to show that the relative size of a population is a very important factor in determining whether those populations should evolve rapidly upwards, slowly upwards, or even downwards. If we put two targets, a large one and a small one, right next to each other, and randomly throw unaimed darts at both of them, it is likely that the larger target will receive more hits. The same is true of a population of living individuals. Whatever mutation rates we assume, we can confidently expect that a larger breeding population will receive more of those favorable mutations than a smaller one will. (It will also receive more unfavorable mutations – but those are quickly weeded out and eliminated from the gene pool, because they produce individuals which are less fit for survival.)
We also know that unfavorable mutations are more common than favorable ones; no one deliberately raises their family on an old nuclear test site to take advantage of possible favorable mutations. But even though favorable mutations are rare; they confer a survival advantage to offset this. How much this helps depends on the size of the breeding population which receives the mutation.
If we assume that favorable mutations occur in one individual out of a thousand, and that their survival advantage will cause them to quickly spread to the whole population, a population with only twenty individuals will receive a boost about once in fifty generations. However, if the population size is a hundred individuals, a boost can be expected about every ten generations. This means smaller populations cannot evolve upward as rapidly as large ones.
This is the reason why insects and micro-organisms are able to make adaptations by which they resist man’s attempts to eliminate them; they have extremely large populations (and also short generation times). At the other extreme, the future of endangered species is bleak; their low numbers are a liability, not an asset. Without a large enough population, survival pressure simply means a high probability of extinction.
This means upward evolution can be expected to occur most rapidly in large populations of individuals, but it cannot even keep pace with normal genetic deterioration in very small populations (from the relatively more common, unfavorable mutations). However, the fossil evidence shows us that observable evolutionary advance do not happen quickly (if at all) in even the largest populations (such as cockroaches, who quickly adapt, but don’t appear to “advance” into anything other than tougher cockroaches) where we might be expected to observe great changes over geological time. It would seem to follow that the evidence is against any naturalistic theory of evolution.
Here is the solution which I am suggesting:
When genetic engineers make changes to DNA molecules, they typically find a “surrogate mother” (usually the closest genetic candidate they can find), inject their modified DNA into a cell (often an egg cell), and let the existing cellular machinery do the work for them. The present hypothesis proposes that God might have used a similar method. As powerful as God might be, He could easily make use of very economical methodology. It is well within His capability to simply modify the DNA in an existing egg cell and then wait, allowing His previous creations to take it from there.
More specifically, God might have taken the DNA in a female creature (female where the distinction applies) of one species and modified it to create male and female members of a new species. He may have caused the necessary atoms to align themselves within the DNA, using the “back door” of access He left for Himself in the design of the universe – the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Modifications could have been minimal. God could have left many DNA segments unmodified. As mitochondrial DNA demonstrates, He appears to have borrowed heavily from existing creatures. The pattern of mitochondrial DNA in various creatures suggests that God must have simply left it alone – not even bothering to “correct” neutral mutations which had occurred over the years.
We know from the fossil record that God created a sequence of erect-walking ape-like creatures – each step being less like an ape and more like a modern human. Even if God (having foreknowledge) would not need to make gradual “experimental” progress, there is a reason why this sequence might have been necessary anyway.
If God chose to use surrogate mothers to produce the first members of each new species, he would have needed to create an entire chain of closely spaced transitional forms, connecting all species. The spacing would need to be close, because a surrogate mother can’t successfully deliver something too different from herself. Assuming God has chosen this method to create new species, this would not be a limitation of God’s capability, it would be a limitation of the mother’s.
The problem is obvious if we imagine modifying the genes in a mother mouse in such a manner that her offspring were to become a baby elephant. This is an extreme example; but the same general principle applies to even very small steps – such as the problems that humans have when there are incompatible blood Rh factors between a mother and a her developing child. Since even a difference in blood type can make a true mother dangerous to her unborn baby, a “surrogate mother” (in the sense we are now considering) would need to be quite similar to any potential offspring.
If God chose to bridge major kinds using surrogate mothers, there would be an upper limit to the size of the steps which could be taken; this limit would be the point where the differences become fatal to a developing offspring. It is similar to the natural limit for interbreeding between creatures of slightly different kinds, for the same reason. If the kinds are too dissimilar, offspring cannot survive (or cannot reproduce in some cases). This hypothesis predicts that the maximum step size between created “kinds” will be at about the limit of interbreeding.
In many cases, this appears to be the approximate spacing between presently existing species. This is also approximately the spacing we find in the fossil record: we see a chain of “quantum leaps” at approximately the interbreeding limit, connecting life’s kinds. This is different from the gradual continuum predicted by Darwin’s theory, and also different from the complete absence of transitional forms which most creationistic theories predict.
We can see how God might have accomplished this in Luke’s Gospel, starting with how Jesus was to be born of Mary:
Luke 1:35:
“The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”
Next, just three chapters later, in Luke’s Gospel:
Luke 3:37:
Adam is also called “The son of God.”
Since the phrase, “The Son of God,” has just been defined for us two chapters earlier, it would seem to appear that Luke is telling us that: “The Most High also overshadowed Adams ‘mother’.”
If this is how “evolution” proceeds, the paradox between Dawkins and Gould has been easily resolved, and Luke’s Gospel clears up the conflict between: the mathematical theoretical basis, and the fossil evidence! For details, see:
However, this sort of proffered harmony between evolution and the gospel isn’t likely to take root in the world as we presently know it. If it were to establish a footing, it might require a small, isolated, group of individuals who were less subject to social pressure.
The “Christian Church” is a huge and very splintered “disorganization.” Once upon a time we seemed to have done fairly well at hanging together — at least for about the first thousand years following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (with occasional Church councils to hammer out the squabbles), but following about AD 1054 (the great schism), we have been rapidly bifurcating: Roman, Greek, Russian, Protestant, Presbyterian, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Cults … None of the branches have perfectly followed the straight and narrow path specified by God’s Holy Truth. (For example, it took about 400 years for the Roman Church too “pardon” Galileo for telling the truth about astronomy.)
Young people are, indeed, leaving established Churches, although new Churches are also being planted and established all over the world. I, myself, am guilty of leaving half a dozen established churches (for one reason or another) while I presently attend only one Church. Arguably, that makes me, personally, responsible for a net loss of five, in Church attendance (joke intended). Children do not always accept their parent’s beliefs. Attrition tends to be slow and constant, while “revivals,” and other means of church growth, tend to be episodic and unpredictable.
Change happens in many different ways. From the tiny “twigs” at the ends of the denominational branches come new, but surprisingly seductive and popular teachings, like Ellen G. White’s “24-hour creation days” and “flood geology,” or John Nelson Darby’s teachings on “futurism.” Sometimes these new teachings even lure established denominations away from scientifically sound teachings. Might it be possible for a new way of viewing evolution to take root in a similar manner, but in a way that restores scientific continuity?
How are churches to avoid becoming irrelevant? They certainly cannot afford to ignore correctly-established scientific understanding. Bertrand Russell’s essay: “Why I an Not a Christian” should be read by anyone who is concerned about the relevancy of the Church; his objections may originally have encouraged the Church to abandon science; but “science” has moved on; it is finally in a position to answer all of Russell’s objections in a solid and convincing manner. Christians ought to be made aware of this.
And what about the scientists? At this point, well established scientists are probably afraid to reconsider evidence which might cast an unfavorable light on their own “sacred cows.” There is so much bad blood between the Church and the scientists that physical evidence no longer appears to be sufficient to modify established theory. But again, there might be a “Galileo” somewhere who is willing take up such a crusade.
Claus Volko, M.D.: For me God has always been an abstract concept.
Tianxi Yu: My perspective on God has evolved through an interesting journey that reflects both Eastern and Western influences. Initially, like many others, I was influenced by the Western religious concept of God as an omnipotent, supreme being. However, as I delved deeper into Chinese traditional culture, especially the Taoist concept of “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao,” I began to realize that any existence that can be defined is not truly ultimate. The key transformation came with the realization that: when we attribute any qualities to God, we are actually limiting God. It’s like my previous example about “beauty” – when we say someone is beautiful, we imply others are relatively less so. Similarly, when we call God omnipotent, we are actually defining God by human standards, which reveals that God evolved from human thinking. Therefore, my current understanding is: the true ultimate existence is the indescribable “emptiness.” It transcends God and all concepts of duality. God is the culmination of human wisdom, a bridge to “emptiness,” but not the endpoint. This understanding has enabled me to better comprehend how divine manifestations occur through natural phenomena, and why the relationship between humans and God is one of mutual seeking. This isn’t a weakening of faith, but a deeper understanding of divinity.
Jacobsen: Based on the formulations given before, what formulations of God, either as reality or concept, make the least sense to you? Those proposed, at least, by some in history, not necessarily here. I am trying work on a strengths-based presentation of the different views.
Rosner: So, I don’t have a huge problem with God as a manipulating force behind the universe as a simulation. Suppose you want to postulate that all of this is a simulation in somebody else’s world and that it’s just a good simulation. In that case, I’ll accept that for the sake of argument. The argument breaks down if you try to break the simulation because it’s a poor simulation.
And there might be no significant differences in what we experience between a universe that plays out naturally and one that is a well-made simulation. So, that kind of God, I’m okay with considering. That leaves the old-school God—the omnipotent, omniscient, score-keeping creator—pretty absurd.
You’ve got gods like the Greek and Roman gods, which are superheroes in a big soap opera with lots of drama. Those are ridiculous. And I don’t entertain that many versions of God.
I haven’t studied all the deities in Hinduism or the gods in Indian religions in detail. So, I know there’s someone who is the destroyer, there’s Ganesh, the elephant-headed God, and so on. But all those gods don’t hold up to any scrutiny. The ancient Egyptian gods, with their animal-headed depictions, don’t hold up either.
So, if you want to divide things, you have to eliminate from consideration, under your question, all the gods that people used to believe in but don’t anymore. Then you’re left ranking the ridiculousness or absurdity of the gods that still have some following.
The old Christian and Catholic gods don’t hold water either. I suppose you could include superstitions, like astrology, as having godlike properties. However, to the extent that they determine behaviour, they’re also ridiculous.
So, there you go. That includes the devil under “ridiculous” since he’s essentially the loyal opposition.
Stoner: Among the most common formulations of God, the one which makes the least sense to me would probably be the one presented by the Hindus. This does not mean that I disagree with everything that Hindus teach.
“… is a synthesis of various strands of Indian religious thought, including the Vedic concept of dharma (duty, rightful action); samkhya-based yoga and jnana (insight, knowledge); and bhakti (devotion).”
These three are roughly parallel to the three ways which Plato and Aristotle believed that arguments could be legitimately made:
Ethos: similar to dharma (duty, rightful action);
Logos: similar to jnana (insight, knowledge); and
Pathos: similar to bhakti (devotion).
I have no problem at all with applying combinations of ethics, logic, and compassion. Also according to the same Wikipedia article:
“The text is generally dated to the second or first century BCE, though some scholars accept dates as early as the 5th century BCE.”
This, places western thought (e.g. Plato — born 428-423 BC, and died 348 BC) roughly contemporary to it (at least according to “some scholars”).
Continuing with the Wikipedia article on the Gita: “The Gita discusses and synthesizes sramana- and yoga-based renunciation, dharma-based householder life, and devotion-based theism, attempting “to forge a harmony” between these three paths. It does this in a framework addressing the question of what constitutes the virtuous path that is necessary for spiritual liberation or release from the cycles of rebirth (moksha), …”.
It has been a few years since I read this story about Prince Arjuna’s discussion with his charioteer Krishna, but my memory was less about accepting any imagined “harmony” about the disaster of the impending battle, than it was focused on the unrealistic time scales given for the involved cycles
(Incidentally the very “precise” numbers for the times of those cycles appear to result from the ancient Sumerian, astronomically-based, numbering system, involving exact factors of 5, 3, and 2. This would make an interesting study in itself.)
The goal of the Hindu religion appears to be: escape from the unrealistic and endless cycles. This is where it appears to make the least sense to me.
On the other hand, in the Gita, Krishna appears to be an avatar of Vishnu. As explained in the Wikipedia articles, Hinduism, like Christianity, is quite fragmented. I hope to be able to hear more thoughts on this.
Volko: Well, I just do not think that God is a creature that looks similar to a person. It would be strange – God should be eternal and therefore need no mouth and intestines to absorb and digest food, for example.
Yu: From my perspective, several theological concepts throughout history are particularly difficult to reconcile with reason. First, those formulations that attribute extreme personified characteristics to God, such as describing the divine as angry, jealous, or vengeful, are clearly projections of human emotions and limitations onto the concept of divinity. As I mentioned before, when we attribute specific personal characteristics to God, we are actually limiting and diminishing the divine essence.
Second, certain religious traditions that simultaneously describe God as completely transcendent while claiming direct divine intervention in mundane human affairs present a contradictory position that’s hard to rationalize. If God is truly transcendent, then divine actions shouldn’t be interpreted through human behavioral patterns. Chinese traditional culture offers a more reasonable explanatory framework through the concept of “unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一), where divinity is inherent within nature and human nature, rather than an external force arbitrarily intervening.
Third, perspectives claiming that God can only be approached through specific religious organizations or rituals are questionable. In my understanding, divinity manifests itself through natural laws and universal principles, which everyone can understand through observation and contemplation. As Laozi stated, “The Tao follows what is natural” (道法自然). True divinity should be universally accessible rather than monopolized by any particular group.
These limitations in conceptualizing God often stem from trying to confine the infinite within finite human understanding, much like trying to contain the ocean in a cup. The more profound approach, as suggested by Eastern wisdom traditions, is to recognize the inadequacy of our conceptual frameworks while remaining open to the mystery of existence itself.
Jacobsen: What are the strengths of the propositions on God presented so far in this conversation if any?
Rosner: I take everything back to the principles of existence. Though that can drift into tautology—it’s easy to end up as circular reasoning. Only self-consistent things can exist, but pushing that idea too hard becomes a tautology. The only things that can exist are the things that can exist.
You can put it on a better footing by saying that the principles of existence aren’t so restrictive that nothing can exist. That at least allows you to figure out what can exist.
That includes entities, beings, and conscious things. Those conscious beings, no matter how old or big or how much information they process, are subject to limitations similar to our own.
It’s reasonable to think that everything that exists is subject to the rules of existence, which precludes omnipotence and timelessness—concepts like “has always existed” or “will always exist.”
Those limitations mean we likely share characteristics with beings and civilizations much more vast and older than ourselves and our civilization. These entities are so ancient, vast, and powerful in information processing and manipulating the world around them that they possess godlike powers.
Does that power extend to things like not having to live in linear time or being able to reconfigure space to their liking? I don’t know. But it’s a reasonable proposition.
We don’t currently know of any entities in the world beyond those on Earth, but I assume we will eventually discover some. Even though such entities might appear godlike, they will still have limitations in common with us.
So, those are a couple of propositions that, whatever the fricking question was, address the idea.
Stoner: Perhaps ironically, I find myself unable to provide a purely “logical” rebuttal to Tianxi Yu’s:
God x Science, Emptiness x Buddhism.
I have (somewhat arbitrarily) accepted “logic” on faith alone (option “D” in my original post) hence embracing science and, consequently, a “logical” God. However, if I had (arbitrarily) chosen to regard logic as “illusion” (option “C”), then I suppose I might now be, philosophically, staring into an empty void (and probably chiding Descartes for arguing against me).
Volko: I have the impression that most participants agree on the abstractness of God.
Yu: From the dialogues presented, I observe several valuable perspectives. Most notably, each participant attempts to construct a framework for understanding divinity from their professional domain and cultural background. Dr. Stoner’s approach of building a theological system through logic and mathematics, while characteristic of Western rational thinking, provides a concrete foundation for discussion. Mr. Rosner’s understanding of God through the lens of universal information processing is equally illuminating. It’s particularly noteworthy that all participants are attempting to reconcile traditional theology with modern scientific knowledge, an endeavor that is significant in itself.
However, I believe the strongest proposition lies in acknowledging the limitations of our cognition. As Taoism suggests, “The greatest wisdom is like foolishness,” sometimes acknowledging our ignorance is the highest form of wisdom. Dr. Volko’s view of God as a metaphor for the unknown resonates with the Chinese traditional concept of “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” This reminds us to maintain an open and humble attitude when exploring questions of divinity.
The integration of Eastern and Western perspectives provides a more complete understanding, just as the concept of Yin and Yang suggests that opposing forces can complement each other. This cross-cultural dialogue demonstrates that the search for understanding God benefits from multiple viewpoints, methodologies, and cultural traditions, creating a richer and more nuanced comprehension of the divine.
Jacobsen: What were the aspects of the responses leaving more questions open about theology and philosophy for you if any?
Rosner: I touched on it in the previous answer, which is this: Let’s say that any conscious being or linked set of beings or civilizations—even if they are a billion or 10 billion years old—
Are there beings like this of arbitrary age? Is there no prohibition under the principles of existence, and is there no upper limit to the size or age of entities? Is that true?
If it is true, what limitations would these entities be unable to overcome regardless of their power to manipulate the world?
So, just as a starting point, are there godlike entities by their age and size? And if so, what are their limitations and powers?
One area to consider is that we are verging on extremely powerful quantum computing and advanced regular computing. Computing—especially the kind of computation in our brains—is inherently predictive. Our brains are predictive organs. According to the leading framework in neuroscience right now, brains are designed to predict what will happen next so that we are best prepared to respond to it.
As computation becomes more powerful, can entities see superimposed future world lines with great detail? Everyone knows about Schrödinger’s cat, a thought experiment involving a box containing a cat in two superimposed states: alive and dead. If the predictive capabilities of computation become sufficiently advanced, does that mean entities could live within superimposed world lines?
That is, would they perceive multiple potential futures simultaneously and negotiate among them? Could they see a range of superimposed possibilities for the future and choose the most favourable ones?
We do this anyway, but it doesn’t feel like we choose among superimposed worlds. However, as our ability to simulate the future becomes more powerful, could this fundamentally change how time is experienced? If that ability becomes advanced enough, does it mean such entities wouldn’t experience time as linearly as we do?
I don’t know.
One possible question, specifically, does an entity of sufficient age and computational power experience time linearly? Events still have to play out in sequence, but if such an entity chooses from possible futures moment by moment—with each possible future laid out in detail—what does that mean for their time experience?
For example, some AI chess programs can calculate far more potential moves than a human chess master. A chess master might be able to anticipate five or six moves ahead based on various possibilities. Still, a chess-playing computer can map out the next ten moves for hundreds of branching possibilities.
Suppose an entity could do that with the entire world itself. Would that result in a fundamentally different time experience? Or am I just overthinking this?
Stoner: I am generally comfortable with my current understanding, however, Claus Volko has left me with a few questions: His definition: “God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand and perhaps can’t understand,” … certainly leaves me questioning how much more there is which I don’t and can’t understand. Although the scientific method (observation and reason) is certainly useful, I was unable even to take that first step (believing in logic/reason) without taking logic on “faith” alone.
… And, I don’t think anybody really knows what exactly God is either
“… Who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. … – 1 Timothy 6:16
Volko: (No answer).
Yu: Looking at the responses, several key questions emerged that deserve deeper exploration.
While each respondent offered unique perspectives, certain gaps remained worthy of further discussion. When Rosner discussed cosmic civilizations and information processing, it reminded me of the Buddhist concept of “other worlds.” If advanced civilizations truly exist, could Buddhist scriptures’ descriptions of other realms be metaphors for different levels of civilization? This question bridges metaphysical and physical understanding.
Stoner’s theological system built on logic and mathematics raises intriguing questions about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative aspects of existence. While ancient Chinese thinkers recognized the connection between numbers and principles, the fundamental question remains: Can logic fully explain the essence of existence?
The deepest question concerns the nature of consciousness. Although quantum mechanics and consciousness were mentioned in the discussion, no one thoroughly explored how consciousness undergoes qualitative changes. In modern physics, we see phenomena like quantum entanglement that might suggest deeper connections between individual and universal consciousness. The real mystery lies in understanding these connections without falling into simplistic reductionism.
These questions reflect the complex interplay between ancient wisdom and modern science, pointing to the need for a more integrated understanding that transcends traditional boundaries between disciplines and cultural frameworks.
Jacobsen: Based on the responses from others, what questions do you have for individual participants or the group as a whole now?
Rosner: I can understand the idea of nothingness being a preferred way of being. I like existing, though. I enjoy the moment-to-moment rewards of existence. But I also understand that if you cease to exist, everything great you’ve experienced is obliterated—which is probably what will happen.
Even if I don’t share that perspective, I can see why nothingness is desirable to some people. I don’t like that view—it gives me the “sads”—but I can acknowledge it.
I’d ask a Christian, particularly a sophisticated Christian, how Christianity fits into the world’s physics and metaphysics and how it interacts with physics and cosmology.
It seems like a generous or efficient God. If such a God had created the world, it would have created it with physical laws that give it immense coherence and solidity. A world where cause and effect operate consistently, where its apparent age of 14 billion years and the process of evolution spanning billions of years are part of that design, and where we humans are one of its products.
I’d want to know how God “pulled it off.” What were His intentions, and how does He continue interacting with the world He created?
Regarding the Bhagavad Gita, apart from associations with Hinduism—like depictions of gods with multiple arms or being blue—is that part of it?
Given the way the world has been going in the 21st century, I used to think, “Nah, I wouldn’t want that.” I wanted to live in a world where physics was in charge. But given all the chaos and problems in the world, I’ve started to reconsider.
My wife and I—well, mostly me—have this obsession. I have a collector’s personality. When I was a kid, I had every single issue of Mad Magazine ever printed. And now, I kind of obsessively collect mosaics and micromosaics.
One of my best mosaics is this huge, high-relief 3D mosaic of Jesus on the cross with Mary and John. It’s definitely Mary—his mother—and John, the disciple, who are all depicted in 3D in this mosaic.
It sits in my office, where I look at it dozens of times a day, and I often find myself wishing for the figure in that mosaic—Jesus—to come back and set shit straight.
I have almost zero belief that this could happen, and I know it would be pretty freaking weird. I believe in physics a million times more than I believe in Jesus. But I still wish that Jesus would come down. Now, I know the Rapture is supposed to take good people up to Heaven, but I want a reverse rapture where the biggest dickheads on Earth are taken off Earth and given a comfortable existence elsewhere. I picture the Europa, the ice moon of Jupiter, that is said to be possibly conducive to life, because it might have an radioactive center that makes it warm enough to support life.
Anyway, he is Jesus. I want him to rapture the 10,000 biggest assholes on earth to ice caves in Europa, where they can’t fuck everybody up here with their bullshit. Then I want Jesus to take the 10,000 second rank jerks. The next 10,000 jerkiest people and have them live there on probation on the moon. The 10,000 people on Europa, they can’t come back. They have proven they’re dickheads. The 10,000 people on the moon, if they clean up their act and quit being dickheads, then they can either keep being dickheads and get sent to Europa or can come back to Earth. That’s my wish for Jesus, and for him to thoroughly convince people of his existence via holy means and shame the people who are Christians in name only and say, “You’re not doing it right, and have them be convinced of his holiness.” I don’t think any of that is going to happen, but I do often wish it would. I do not believe in Jesus, but appeal to Jesus many times in a day.
You could ask me. Why don’t you, if you’re Jew and a science guy, appeal to a science guy or somebody under Judaism? I don’t think we have a guy. Jesus is the handiest deity that I can appeal to.
The God of the Jews is almost too abstract and nebulous. I can imagine Jesus showing up and telling people what’s what. He is–being human–an approachable guy. Does he cut his hair? Does he not look like white man’s Jesus, the really pretty blonde guy? Does he look like more of a Mediterranean dude? Does he take a different human form than the original Jesus? I don’t know.
Stoner: Rick Rosner brings up several points which I believe are worth some discussion:
His idea (or definition) of God being “outside of reality” might be a misunderstanding.
(Christians often say “outside of time and space”). This common belief is probably founded on a lack of awareness of a basic principle of quantum mechanics: The “Math” of Q.M. is not bound to any particular “time” or “location,” within space-time (at least not in the same way that we humans seem to be trapped). Similarly, “God” is not “locally trapped” either, but is as free from that constraint, as is “logic itself.” This does not actually put God outside of reality.
Rosner mentions the beginning of human civilization about 10,000 years ago. This falls between the development of agriculture (circa 12,000 BP) and the development of writing, and therefore the beginning of history (late fourth millennia BC).
This period of time is certainly worth some exploration.
III. Regarding Rosner’s thoughts about the galactic core being more favorable to civilization than the outer arms (where we are): My research suggest otherwise. The close proximity (to the sorts of things rogue stars frequently do) causes our “coastal view of deep space” to represent considerably safer location, as well as one which is far more interesting astronomically.
Rosner’s speculation about “two dimensional time” reminds me of Richard Feynman’s space-time diagrams. If you plant one of his diagrams right at the “big bang,” and rotate it around, you might start to suspect that time not only “advances” in two directions: forward (matter) and reverse (antimatter), but that there might be six additional directions (3 dimensions of space times 2 directions each) which may be accessible via Feynman’s rotations.
I don’t share Rosner’s belief in any real “divorce” between science and religion. I see this as an artifact of the partial blindness of the practitioners of both camps. One might, similarly, expect unity between Democrats and Republicans, if both sides were suddenly to be granted a clear understanding. This might also be worth some discussion.
I particularly thought his haunting closing was worth some discussion:
“The idea of a godless, cold universe without inherent morality—where everything happens by chance—can be a grim prospect. Yet, I believe there is an inherent drive toward order and value within the universe. How can some form of morality persist and be justified in the future without resorting to existential absurdity? The notion that the universe is absurd and that we must impose our values upon it feels bleak to me and not entirely accurate.”
Yu: To be frank, after hearing all the responses, I find most viewpoints too confined within Western thought frameworks.
Mr. Rosner: Your discussion of universal information processing merely scratches the surface. Have you considered why Eastern philosophers proposed much more profound cosmic views thousands of years ago? When you discuss advanced civilizations, have you considered how this thinking itself carries a certain technological supremacist bias?
Dr. Stoner: While your attempt to construct a theological system through logic and mathematics is admirable, it precisely reflects the limitations of Western thinking. Truth often exists within logical paradoxes, just as in Eastern thought, contradictions need not be resolved but embraced.
Dr. Volko: Reducing God to merely “a metaphor for the unknown” seems rather superficial. With a deeper understanding of Eastern philosophy, you would realize that “unknown” itself is a state of being, not merely an absence of knowledge.
From my perspective, true understanding transcends these artificial divisions between East and West, logic and intuition, known and unknown. Until we break free from these mental constraints, our discussion of God will remain disappointingly superficial.
Jacobsen: Life continues to deliver modest amazement at its timing, on a personal note. I am grateful for many, many happenings in life. This is one. Let’s take a more existential orientation, life, death, and love, are realities for everyone. No apparent choice in our coming to life, so pick your parents wisely. In most cases, probably, no definite choice in the time of leaving with some biological limits, so far, placed on upper limits of lifespan. Woody Allen made an astute point. Every century, it’s a flush. We get a new collection of humanity for the most part, since the inception of the human species. What do you make of the relation of life to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition.
Rosner: So, I mean, as you know, I think that what happens and what exists are things that can exist under the principles of existence—which is a circular way of saying that things that are consistent, self-consistent, and have a possible history can exist within a world that can exist. I mean logically consistent framework.
Existence is pleasant while we’re existing. It’s great that the principles of existence permit things to exist. There isn’t a creator involved in this. I do think there are potent processes—like evolution—that we’re a part of. But those processes don’t have teleology, willful intent, or consciousness.
When we think of God, we think of a conscious being intentionally creating the world. I don’t buy that. Unless we’re part of a simulation—which I don’t think we are—there would be no creator; if we were in a simulation, there’d be a creator behind that simulation, but would there be a creator behind the creator? Not necessarily. Probably not.
So, I have a certain amount of reverence for the possibilities that existence permits. I appreciate that the world can exist because it’s logically and mathematically possible. I don’t like some of the constraints of existence—like the inevitability of death and other grim realities—but I still appreciate existence.
Stoner:I particularly enjoyed your advice: “pick your parents wisely.” God’s design for matching parents to their offspring (DNA supplying the causal link), enables just the sort of generation-linking-“wisdom” which you recommend. Not only
do each of us tend to get the parents which we “deserve” (for better or worse), it also tends to saddle each of us with just the sort of children that might enable our remaining progenitors to enjoy their well-earned revenge (as gleefully doting grandparents).
“Life” gives us all a chance “to act as little gods.” As autonomous rulers of our own lives, God gives each of us a chance to make all of our own decisions. We can choose to be kind or cruel, to be selfish or selfless, to love or to hate. Our choices, more than any accident of birth (e.g. the genetic “hand” we were dealt) determine who we really are.
Volko: I actually believe that life and death are two antagonistic divine forces. So you could perhaps speak of the God of Life and the God of Death. I believe that the current state of the world is a consequence of the ongoing fight between these two godly forces. Since neither of them has prevailed yet, people and animals are born and after some time die. If life wins, everything will be alive forever.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the relation of death to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition.
Rosner: I don’t think there’s a willful or intentional God. I think we’re the product of processes that are allowed to happen under the principles of existence—rules that are loose enough to permit things to exist. The most complicated things that have emerged on this planet are evolved beings.
Evolution incorporates death. Evolved creatures are only good enough to produce the next generation and maybe more. But under that system—which isn’t a system since “system” implies intent—we’re not made to live indefinitely. We die. Evolution doesn’t care. It’s not about us.
Evolution can’t care because it’s not an entity. So, there you go.
Stoner: This is when our life’s performance is finally evaluated. As we have all been taught (by the popular cliche), judgement is never really based on whether we “won” or “lost,” but on “how we played the game.” (Or, for anyone who would prefer the biblical version of this same concept: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?” -Luke 9:25 NIV)
“What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?”
The crux of my answer was:
“This life” isn’t “real life.” It’s just “a test.” As we all seem to sense:
“Real life” must be something which is more real and lasts much longer.
So: “Death” is not necessarily the final end. It can be the beginning of “real life.”
Jacobsen: I’ve asked a lot of your community members about love. What do you make of the relation of love to God? Please feel free to give an individual definition.
Rosner: In an evolutionary sense, and in terms of how we function in the world, love is deeply tied to stability and order for an individual. We love someone who reliably and consistently treats us the way we want to be treated. In return, we try to reciprocate. Love is about trust.
It’s about commitment, consistency, and helping each other fulfill our wants and goals. When we look at the love between us and our pets, it’s also about trust—consistently treating another being the way it wants to be treated. Or, in cases where the being can’t make good decisions for itself, treat it in a way we think is best for it.
Stoner:As I have explained elsewhere, Love is a full “third” of God’s nature.
(Logic and Ethics comprising the other two “thirds”).
Volko: In my private religion love is a demigod related to life.
Jacobsen: Relevant to your prior statements about the structure of reality, definition of God, and thoughts on a Deomorph or a Theomorph, or simply a deity or theity, what brings these arguments together under these banners of the existential realities of life, death, and love?
Rosner: To discuss God, you must consult a being—a creator—who is willful, intentional, and conscious. That’s an entity, not just a process allowed to happen, because it doesn’t violate the principles of existence. It’s hard for me to talk about God about anything because I don’t believe in the kind of God we’re likely discussing.
Stoner: I think that is most concisely summed up in St John’s Gospel, where he is relating a discussion between Jesus and a religious leader named Nicodemus. As Jesus explained:
” … God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” -John 3:16 (NIV)
“Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” -Romans 5:7,8 (NIV)
Jacobsen: Now, the floor is Don’s! We can revisit progress and structure once this session is complete.
Stoner: To Tianxi Yu:
I’m duly honored that you have chosen to confer an honorary doctorate upon me; however, I’m primarily autodidactic, and we automaths typically eschew such titles. I’m also honored that you deem my theological system to be a concrete foundation for discussion. I hope that will prove to be true.
I am mildly surprised at your impression that rational thinking is merely a “Western” characteristic. I would have guessed that “logical truth” was a “qualia” which was sensed similarly, to some degree, by all humans, rather than an arbitrarily “taught” way of processing ideas. If not, then I would have to presume any difference would have to be cultural, rather than inherent (although that would be “difficult” for me).
Judaism, and hence Christianity, are both heavily based on this historic foundation, even preserving a few of the ancient Sumerian words in the first few chapters of Genesis, including the ancient Sumerian name “Eden” (the plain between the two rivers), “Adam’s” name (Sumerian for “man”), the “high ranking port authorities,” “ka-rib” (cherub), whom God placed to guard the garden, and the untranslatable puns on the original name for “Adam’s” wife (originally “Ti,” meaning both “rib” (Genesis 2:23) and “life” (Genesis 3:20) in that ancient tongue).
Evidence also suggests that those same original ancient religious beliefs, as well as their systems of astronomy, dating, and numbering (factors of 2, 3, and 5), spread east and west with the technology of writing, and this first “seed” of history.
Claims have even been made that there is some residual evidence of this same ancient history in the ancient Chinese God, Shang Di, and in the ancient characters themselves:
Although I’ve watched this video, I, personally, don’t have enough understanding of the Chinese characters to evaluate the argument which it presents. I would be quite interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
You mention that, in Eastern thought, “Contradictions need not be resolved but embraced.” Starting with the Epimenides/Liars paradox: “This statement is false:” A person who embraces logic can certainly have some fun with that; I, certainly have:
However, I think the real fun comes in resolving apparent paradoxes; making logical sense (or even scientific sense) out of things which “appear to be paradoxical.” For example, I used the two “apparently contradicting” theories of evolution (Gould and Dawkins) as the springboard for my own theory of reconciliation. That sort of operation is how life becomes meaningful to me.
Can logic fully explain the essence of existence? You state that any existence which can be defined is not truly ultimate. This would normally be true, unless, of course, that definition ultimately included all of logic and reason and all material things).
That would be the one, single, exception.
You pointed out that, “No one thoroughly explored how consciousness undergoes qualitative changes.” As Penrose and Hameroff may have demonstrated in their experiments, perturbing quantum mechanical effects appears to temporarily disable consciousness. However, if God is “consciousness,” and we (as well as all matter) are “made of the same substance,” (as Col. 1:17 affirms), then your question gets reversed: “How does “consciousness” control “physical matter” (which is also quantum mechanical)?” This reduces the problem to the obvious: They are the same substance, and they are both “thoughts of God.”
Also: “quantum entanglement” turns out to be the single part of Q.M. which makes classical physics appear to govern the “physical” universe. Entangled “particles,” collectively, “obey” Newton’s laws, while individual “particles” behave under the direction of individual spirits (ourselves) and of God (all other “decisions” in the universe).
Anthropomorphizing God is certainly a technical error, but sometimes it helps lesser humans (almost all of us) to grasp otherwise difficult concepts. (If “God” “calmly” senses an “error,” more is likely to come of it than could ever come from the most angered and vengeful human imaginable.)
You claimed that the true ultimate existence is the indescribable “emptiness.” I agree that if you meditate long enough on statements like “this statement is false,” or unresolved “scientific contradictions,” (without seeking resolution) you will get exactly “nowhere” (a metaphorical synonym for “emptiness”). My question is, why would that kind of “emptiness” be worth pursuing?
You appear to be (presently) a student in Hubei Provence. You may be hoping to get a good job that provides more than the “emptiness” which you claim you seek. That strikes me as being inconsistent. If my view of this is too simple-minded, then I would appreciate correction.
Otherwise, if at some point in the future, you should choose, instead, to live according to the principles of “primordial logic” (as opposed to “logic” being an illusion) you might find both the temporal and eternal rewards to be preferable.
Incidentally, I have a friend in: Shandong, Linyi, Kunan, Dadian, (276612), who is seeking to produce useful and educational products (see atom-pops “soccerball”) and to help people who are in need. Might you and he be on similar or different paths?
(天道酬勤) “Nature follows Tao,” or maybe, “God rewards hard work?”
–
To Rick Rosner:
When Jacobsen asked (in the second round of questions): “Based on the responses from others, what questions do you have for individual participants or the group as a whole now?”
You answered: “I’d ask a Christian, particularly a sophisticated Christian, how Christianity fits into the world’s physics and metaphysics and how it interacts with physics and cosmology.”
This puzzles me, because, in my answer to Jacobsen’s first question, in the first round of questions, #1 define God), I thought I (being a Christian) had already answered this question when I explained:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
Therefore, by inclusion (the effective minor premise):
God is also: That which also brought us into existence.
Therefore, by causal hierarchy (minor premise again):
2) God is also: That which is responsible for our personal existence.
3) Logic is primordial
4) Math is Logic
5) Quantum Mechanics is Math
6) The Physical Universe is Quantum Mechanical
Comprising Q,M, (5) …
Comprising Math (4) …
Comprising Primordial Logic (3) …
… taking us all the way back to our starting definition:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
From this, it appears that:
7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).
Continuing with your answer (above):
… “It seems like a generous or efficient God. If such a God had created the world, it would have created it with physical laws that give it immense coherence and solidity. A world where cause and effect operate consistently, where its apparent age of 14 billion years and the process of evolution spanning billions of years are part of that design, and where we humans are one of its products.
“I’d want to know how God “pulled it off.” What were His intentions, and how does He continue interacting with the world He created?”
I’d have to agree: If I were in your position, I would want to know that too. Did I forget to mention that I am a Christian? (Maybe even a sophisticated one.) Let’s go over Jacobsen’s questions, and my answers, again:
(#2) Jacobsen: For you, does one seek God, or does God seek them, or both (… or neither)?
Stoner: Following from my understanding of God: Probably both. But speaking as a tiny piece of God’s entire universe, rather than as its omnipresent creator (“conscious logic itself”) I doubt my efforts can hold a candle to God’s.
(#3) Jacobsen: What seems like the first reasonable realization in sensibly engaging in this
search of God?
Stoner: The first step (above): Realizing that we take logic on faith.
The next step: Deriving a definition for God (3 & 2 & 1).
The next step: Understanding that God is omnipresent, sentient logic.
The next step: Presuming that, very likely, God is also seeking us.
This present step: Engaging: This shouldn’t be overly difficult:
We just ask God for whatever help we might need.
The only catch is that it’s unlikely that a seeker would be able to hide any questionable motives they might have.
(#4) Jacobsen: Does God, even if distinguishing types or levels of epistemology & ontology, seem knowable in principle or unknowable, as such?
Stoner: God can choose to be: knowable, unknowable, or even both simultaneously. We can observe how this might happen with a test case: Consider this quotation by Physicist Stephen Hawking:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
A Brief History of Time Quotes by Stephen Hawking
Is the source of Hawking’s “fire,” an “unknowable” and mysterious enigma? Or is it blatantly obvious? This was, obviously, a “choice” which Dr. Hawking had to make while he was studying this evidence.
This same choice is also ours to make whenever we study the same universe Hawking once did. I, personally, take the same position taken by Paul (the Apostle): God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV)
In case you missed it, I am a follower and student of Christ. I am also a scientist and a computer engineer, among other things. (And I don’t believe God is an old white man with a beard and flowing robes any more than you do.)
Wrap your head around the Bell Experiment, if you want to understand how God interferes in human affairs. (Like North Dakota, it isn’t the end of the world, but you can probably see it from there.)
Also, I’m guessing your “relationship” with your “mosaic Jesus” might not be as far off as you may have assumed. God sometimes uses both angels and fleas, etc. to do His work. (Maybe He was eavesdropping, and sent you a messenger; one who could answer your questions, face to face, in terms you might be able to accept.)
To Volko:
I’m having trouble extracting a consistent position from your brief comments: e.g.:
“God is a metaphor for things we don’t understand, and perhaps can’t understand.”
“God [presumably the idea held by others?] is so powerful that he can easily observe anybody.”
“We can only speculate about it. (What exactly God is)”
Can you identify any points where you and I specifically and unambiguously disagree?
Do you believe there are elements in my position about which I have been unclear or inconsistent?
Regarding an addition to my questions for the other participants in our discussion on the nature of God:
I have several married daughters; and over Thanksgiving, I got into a disagreement with one of my son’s-in-law over my “definition of God” and my consequential derivation of God’s nature. He lent me a book titled “Does God Have a Nature?” by Alvin Plantinga, which presented a different answer than the one I had proffered; After examining Plantinga’a arguments, I have come to the conclusion that my son-in-law raised some valid points; so, in the spirit of fairness, I must also raise what I regard to be a serious objection against my own definition. So:
Here’s my question for myself (addressing myself in 2nd person):
–
Don Stoner:
Your answer to Scott Jacobsen’s first question:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
… appears to be an oversimplification.
Although this might appear to provide a framework for: logic, math, science, and the physical universe, it fails to address other questions which are certainly at least as important: For example:
How is this supposed to explain “Love,” “Hate,” “Good,” or “Evil?”
Further, considering your conclusion:
7) God (1) assumes the same identity as Primordial Logic (3).
Here, both God (1), and Primordial Logic (3), appear to be defined as the single primordial source which produces the universe. What it fails to do is provide answers to the remaining questions (which are, almost certainly, even more important).
You also bring up the way Plato and Aristotle would have translated “logos” (as “logic”), but fail to mention that Aristotle also considered “pathos” and “ethos” to be valid forms of argument. For example, see:
Both your definition of God, and your supporting argument, appear to be missing at least the last two of these important components of reality.
… and, to expedite the process, here is my answer to my own question:
I appear to be guilty as charged. The definition which I supplied, is clearly incomplete. Please allow me to attempt to correct this omission (recognizing that I am wading into a very convoluted and controversial theological morass of historical opinions as I attempt to do so.)
My answer was:
1) God is: That which brought our universe into existence.
(E.g.: Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1-3)
As an experienced theologian would have immediately volunteered (probably without waiting for an invitation): The nature of God comprises three “persons” (although what the term “person” means, in this context, is subject to some interpretation):
Here I will attempt to sort some references to these three “persons” into Aristotle’s categories:
Pathos: See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children
of God!– 1 John 3:1 (N.I.V.)
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been
born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God,
because God is love. – 1 John 4:7,8 (N.I.V.)
Logos: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
– John 1:1
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
– John 1:3
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us [the Son]. We have seen his
glory, the glory of the one and only one who, came from the Father, full of grace and
truth. – John 1:14
Ethos: When he [the Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and
righteousness and judgment: – John 16:8
(emphasis added)
I should warn the reader that this apparently clean separation is not always this clear and simple.
The exact nature of the relationship between these “persons” (or “properties” of “God”) appears to be more complex. They appear to “blend” together into a single being (one apparently assuming three distinct identities):
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. – John 14:8-10
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from theFather—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. – John 15:26
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: – John 16:7,8 (emphasis added)
In my original answer, I concentrated on “logos/logic” and the physical aspects of the universe, because that is the arena where my formal education has been focused. Although the “pathos” and “ethos” elements are almost certainly, even more important, they are sufficiently outside of my field of expertise, that I am reluctant to attempt to claim understanding of additional detail.
My corrected answer is:
1A) God is: That which is foundational to logic, math, physics. and therefore our universe.
1B) God is also: That which is foundational to emotion and emotional arguments.
and
1C) God is also: That which is foundational to ethics and ethical arguments.
Although I am able to supply the details backing 1A, I lack the expertise and experience, and I therefore, leave it as an exercise for the reader to fill in the “mechanics” supporting 1B and 1C. I don’t suppose this clarifies my answer; but I do hope that it, at least, corrects it.
Rosner: For Don, on the argument for the existence to logic, math, quantum mechanics, and then back to God, I agree with much but not all of it. Anything that exists must conform to the principles of existence. There may be deeper levels of understanding beyond the basic logic of non-contradiction.
For things to exist, they cannot contradict themselves. They must have a consistent history and exist within a framework of space and time free from contradiction. I think this applies to God as well. God cannot supersede or override the principles of existence, including logic and non-contradiction.
One could argue, from a standpoint of faith, that God created these principles and thus has power over them.
However, I don’t accept that part of the argument. For God to exist, God must conform to the rules of existence. To paraphrase: “God must exist to exist.”
On the position that we take logic on faith, if we take logic on faith, everything we understand is also based on faith. Our understanding of logic comes from our accumulated experience of the world, through which we’ve explicitly and implicitly learned what seems to exist.
In our experience, for something to exist, it must have a degree of solidity, permanence, or duration. It must also conform to explicit and implicit principles we’ve learned about the world. This includes some level of logic. But all of this is ultimately based on our experiences, and believing in our experiences is both an act of faith and necessity, as we have little to rely on. Our lived experience is the foundation of what we know.
To reject this would leave us with nothing to stand on. Stephen Hawking once pointed out that “without some foundation of truth, we have no place to stand.”
On Hawking’s insights an unknowable mystery, maybe it is something blatantly obvious, this is a choice Hawking had to make as he studied the evidence.
Consider this: when we are children, we often ask ourselves why we are who we are rather than someone else. The answer lies in our lived experience—our sensory input belongs to the person we are. Similarly, the fire within us, like Hawking’s drive or “fire,” is rooted in experiencing our particular selves in this particular world at this particular time. This fire is animated and given meaning through the lens of our conscious experience.
And for something to exist, it must have some consistency. This allows us to believe in the world and trust in its durability. But you can imagine there is an infinity of other possible experienced worlds—or even the same world experienced by other people—that each has that same fire, immediacy, and feeling of authenticity rooted in consciousness.
I’m taking “fire” to mean roughly the same thing as the feeling we get from being conscious in the world—the feeling of extreme authenticity that we are alive in a world that exists. But countless other worlds could potentially exist. However, we don’t experience those other worlds. We experience moments, a string of moments, as ourselves in this particular world.
Why not some other world?
Because everything we experience pertains to us, informs us, and is experienced as us in this particular world. This world is special because it relates directly to our consciousness of it. But that doesn’t preclude the existence of other worlds that function in similar ways for others.
To repeated statements about being a Christ follower, student, and sophisticated Christian, my take on these sophisticated theological approaches when they incorporate modern scientific concepts.
I don’t mind these approaches—they’re certainly preferable to those of American evangelicals who have, in many cases, moved away from Christ and his principles in service of some truly terrible people. I appreciate the teachings of Christ, even while knowing less about other religions that also value humans and the world. I value all teachings that emphasize preservative order and Golden Rule-based principles, which are common across many religions.
These principles exist beyond religion. You can also find them within physics, though this has been deemphasized over the last 100 years. Modern physics often portrays the universe as cold and random, indifferent to us, which isn’t entirely true. At the very least, Jesus was a person who existed in the world. I believe any person has value—both as someone who experiences it and as a manifestation of the forces for order.
Onhe inherent tragedy of existence, every conscious being is, to some degree, a tragedy because we’re all born to die—unless you believe in religions that promise something beyond this life. For many, the recompense for the loss of oneself is insufficient. Technology, however, may soon offer more means of perpetuating ourselves. Humanity, combined with technology, could evolve into entities and systems that are less mortal than we are now.
Technology is replacing religion. That’s a process I’ve talked about. As technology becomes more powerful, it increasingly takes over functions we once turned to religion for—such as immortality, justice, fairness, and preserving what we value in the world.
I’m writing a book about a smart individual who turns to Jesus for comfort in old age—not as the Messiah, but as a source of solace. Some people turn to the world of Disney for unconditional love. Just two blocks from our house, an auction house specializes in Disney memorabilia. We walked through it today on the way to get sandwiches.
Unconditional love is powerful. It’s comforting and can inspire you to be a better person. It’s the opposite of engaging with violent movies or porn. If you look at porn, you go out into the world and have to correct your perception of people as just sexual objects. Similarly, after watching a violent movie—like a Liam Neeson film or something with an even higher body count—you need to remind yourself that the world isn’t just a place for violent confrontations: having an “office Jesus” is a reminder that there are better ways to be in the world.
On an omnipresent creator as conscious logic, I’m not sure I believe in “conscious logic.” Consciousness exists in sufficiently complicated, self-consistent information-processing systems. But logic—or the principles of existence, like non-contradiction—is not an information-processing system. It’s a set of principles that define what can and cannot exist in the world.
Logic isn’t a reality constructor; it’s a reality allower. It’s not conscious or capable of information processing. Unless proven otherwise, it’s more like an inanimate gatekeeper.
You said, “I don’t believe God is an old white man with a beard and flowing robes any more than you do.”
It’s interesting. I think it shows some alignment in rejecting certain anthropomorphic depictions of God. However, I also appreciate attempts at theology that use logic and science as a foundation.
We both share common ground in believing that any God or creator must be consistent with the rules of physics. Either the creator has to exist within the framework of those rules, or there has to be some structure in the universe that exempts the creator from them.
Our understanding of physics limits this perspective. Our experience of the world and its physics is incredibly local. Humans have only been aware of and interacting with physics for about 100,000 years—if you include fossil records and our broader observations of the universe. However, we’ve only had what could be considered a fairly complete understanding of the overall structure of the universe for about 100 years.
Given this, there could be a greater scope of physics or metaphysics, where what we know is just a subset. Within such a broader framework, there might be room for a virtually omnipotent creator. But suppose the physics we know turns out to be the physics of all possible worlds and all places within them. In that case, that leaves little room for a God beyond the physical laws we already understand.
Stoner:If you and Rick choose to end the discussion at this point, at the very least, I am compelled to explain that I am stopping under protest: I am prepared to demonstrate that modern physics (particularly quantum mechanics) answer Ricks closing objections; not only do they leave room for a God, in some cases they even require some such entity, in order to explain what we observe in our modern experiments, e.g. see:
These experiments demonstrate ‘spooky’ effects which are not even remotely within the reach of Newton’s classical-causality laws.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu. December 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 22). ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation on Finding God with Claus Volko, Donald Wayne Stoner, Rick Rosner, and Tianxi Yu [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/finding-god.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Tianxi Yu, once intrigued by logic puzzles, entered the high-IQ community through chance, adopting it as a hobby. Over time, Yu’s disillusionment with superficial validation in high-IQ societies led to selling test answers, exposing systemic flaws. Yu criticized the lack of integrity in high-IQ leaders, highlighting vanity and false pretenses. Advocating for tests as intellectual hobbies, Yu proposed transparency, dynamic testing, and diminished focus on scores. While acknowledging ethical tensions, Yu emphasized the need for reform over trust restoration, urging communities to prioritize intellectual challenges and real achievements. Ultimately, Yu seeks systemic change and challenges the culture of validation-driven intelligence.
Keywords: high-IQ societies, intellectual validation, logic puzzles, meaningful achievements, system flaws, test answer leaks, test security.
Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did participation in logic puzzles and reasoning competitions influence the development of the eventual conclusion of high-range tests best as a hobby?
Tianxi Yu: From a young age, I was interested in solving puzzles. My encounter with HRTs was purely accidental. However, as I learned more about HRTs, I discovered they represented a purer form of logic, which led me to adopt them as a hobby.
Jacobsen: What motivated the extension into participation into high-IQ societies? What are some of the other reasons or decisions to sell IQ test answers?
Yu: Initially, I was motivated by my interest in HRTs and the belief that members of high-IQ societies would be intelligent and interesting people. After all, members of high-IQ societies frequently appeared on intellectual competition TV shows. My decision to sell answers ultimately stemmed from my growing dislike of this community.
Jacobsen: I have been told before that the selling of high-range test answers in Asian circles spans back as far as 2012. Therefore, at a minimum, this is potentially a significant issue and a long-term one. What would you estimate the scale selling and leaking of high-range test question answers in Asia and beyond? With the internet, it seems natural: This is global, not simply Chinese circles or even Asian circles. What does this mean for the Latin, European, and North American high-I.Q. circles, as this has been happening for so many years and so pervasively?
Yu: I find it difficult to estimate the scale, as I was just an elementary school student in 2012. However, given how much time has passed, I believe most regions have likely received test answers. I myself have received such answers, including SLSE I II 48 and LS24 36. These leaked answers were of high quality, capable of achieving scores around 170.
As a side note, when I was verifying these answers, for example with SLSE II, I found that the leaked answer ‘a’ differed from answer ‘b’ that I derived through my own logical reasoning. When I applied answer ‘a’ to the question, I discovered logic chain A, but found that both logic chains A and B were similarly rigorous, making it difficult to determine which answer was superior. This wasn’t an isolated case – there were multiple such questions, suggesting that SLSE I II tests weren’t particularly rigorous. From my perspective, the leaking of HRT answers was an inevitable outcome of systematic flaws in the testing mechanism.
Jacobsen: What were the primary factors that led you to oppose certain high-IQ associations outside of the stipulated emotions felt, i.e. “dislike”?
Yu: Yes, it was because of “dislike.” I tend to be conservative in my approach – if I’m 80% certain of something, I’ll only claim 30% certainty, which is why people around me consider me reliable. As I learned more about the high-IQ community, I discovered they were like buckets filled only to 10% but presenting themselves as 100% full, while hinting at their modesty when in reality they claimed to be pure gold.
Take China’s largest high-IQ society – the Shenghan Club – for example. Its three leaders attended the worst universities, with some not even making it to university. I’ve spoken with them all; they try to sound profound but lack substance, only interested in collecting membership fees.
Then there’s the case of Liu Dan, a high-IQ society member who started with a score of 120 and later applied to the Olympic Association. She gained higher IQ scores through making love with high-scoring members of the high-IQ community (https://www.zhihu.com/question/396415262/answer/1241102475). For clarity, the key names in the article are: CWJ – Wenjin Chen (Shenghan Association founder), SWJ – Wenchin Sui (former highest IQ in China), LJL – Junlong Li (Silent House Association founder).
Now you can understand how ridiculous the Chinese high-IQ community is. They’re ignorant without realizing it, yet act superior and treat others as fools. This phenomenon isn’t limited to Chinese communities – people like Younghoon Kim appear equally absurd to me. I’m not completely dismissing high-IQ societies; there are some good people like Mahir Wu. However, when the highest leaders of this community don’t live up to their positions, there’s a need for change.
Jacobsen: How did you balance profiting from their frameworks while actively challenging their practices? The ethics seems more clear, as bad in exploitation of a weak spot in the high-range testing environment, while redeeming to some degree to beginning, potentially, a serious conversation about developing more cheat-resistant tests and about the culture desired to be developed amongst the smart; when compared to the effects long-term and short-term on the high-range testing environment, that is, the given uncertainty of the extent of the challenge to the entire environment–so, a distinction and line drawn between ethical and technical-cultural issues.
Yu: There was no need for balance, as my goal was to completely overturn the high-IQ community with overwhelming force. This business couldn’t last forever – the high-IQ community only entered public consciousness due to the explosive popularity of shows like “The Super Brain” and similar intellectual competition programs.
But such popularity is inherently unsustainable. When the hype dies down, everything returns to obscurity. What I was doing wasn’t just about profit – it was about exposing the fundamental flaws in the system. By selling answers and demonstrating how easily the system could be manipulated, I was forcing a confrontation with its inherent problems.
The community’s focus on scores and certifications rather than genuine intellectual achievement created its own vulnerability. I saw my actions as a form of creative destruction – by exploiting and exposing these weaknesses, I was demonstrating why the entire system needed to be reformed.
In a way, the ethical implications were secondary to the larger goal of systemic change. When a system is fundamentally flawed, sometimes it needs to be broken down before it can be rebuilt properly. While selling answers was technically unethical, the existing system was already ethically compromised by its emphasis on superficial measures of intelligence rather than genuine intellectual development.
Jacobsen: I am aware others did the same for free. So, finances aren’t the main motivation necessarily. These can be swept under the rug without being dealt with at times. Maybe, your expressions were a long-time coming while you become the lightning rod for a wider phenomenon. Why was finance part of the equation for you? What do you think the motivation might be for others who take no charges for any of the leaks of high-range test answers?
Yu: Money was a factor for me because I lacked it at the time. Now that I’m financially comfortable, I wouldn’t consider doing this kind of business anymore. However, I’m still reluctant to release my answers for free, since many of my solutions achieved perfect scores, while other leaked answers typically only reached around 170 points.
As for others who leak answers for free, their motivations could be varied – some might want to show off their abilities, others might want to attack specific test authors, and some might simply want to disrupt the system. Since I was just an elementary school student when much of this started, I don’t know the specific details, but from what I understand, these high-scoring answers initially began circulating in Europe and America.
Jacobsen: How do you perceive the role of vanity and validation-seeking within high-IQ communities? What if others direct accusations against your behaviour and attitudes, i.e., claiming arrogance and lack of remorse & accountability?
Yu: The role of vanity and validation-seeking in high-IQ communities is precisely what I despised most. Most members are people with average intelligence who seek validation through test scores rather than real achievements. They often have limited education and actual IQs not exceeding 130, yet they constantly boast and profit from membership fees. They seek validation through numbers because they’re not doing well in real life.
As for accusations of arrogance and lack of remorse – honestly, I don’t care what others think anymore. I’ve moved beyond caring about IQ scores or others’ opinions of me. A truly intelligent person proves themselves through actual achievements, not by defending their reputation in high-IQ societies.
I understand people might call my behavior arrogant, but I’ve always been direct about what I observe. When I see people with mediocre abilities presenting themselves as intellectual giants, I call it out. When I see systemic problems, I expose them. If being honest about these issues makes me appear arrogant, so be it. I’d rather be considered arrogant while speaking the truth than be praised for maintaining comfortable lies.
Regarding accountability – I’ve been completely transparent about my actions. I’ve used my real name, Tianxi Yu, since 2020, and I’ve openly discussed everything I did. Unlike many in these communities who hide behind false credentials, I’ve taken responsibility for my actions and their consequences
Jacobsen: What lessons did you learn from managing a business that profited from selling test answers?
Yu: From this business experience, I learned that truly intelligent people exist, but most of them maintain a low profile and don’t seek attention. For example, there’s someone in the high-IQ community with an IQ over 180 who, despite limited formal education, earned over 10 million in 2023. The genuinely smart people I regularly interacted with in this community weren’t the ones with prominent reputations – they were mostly unknown figures working quietly in the background. Most importantly, I learned that those who can accept themselves and acknowledge their imperfections are the ones who can go further and achieve more.
Jacobsen: How did these experiences influence your current values?
Yu: These experiences didn’t have much influence on my values, as my core principles haven’t changed. If anything, my experience investing in cryptocurrency had a greater impact on my value system.
Jacobsen: How did these experiences make you want to move to a more standard path in life?
Yu: My move to a more standard path wasn’t really about these experiences with the high-IQ communities – it was more about recognizing what truly matters in life. After seeing both the superficiality of the high-IQ world, I realized that real fulfillment comes from meaningful work and genuine achievements.
Jacobsen: Given your background and, essentially, expertise in a weird enterprise grounded in the vanity of others, what are your thoughts on the effectiveness and security of high-range tests, particularly in the context of widespread answer leakage? Are proctored standardized tests like the WAIS subject to similar or different weaknesses to test answer leaks?
Yu: HRTs have no real security. I remember Mahir Wu once publicly stated that by combining two test papers that scored 160 on N-World, one could create an answer set scoring over 180. For tests of lower difficulty, high scores can be achieved through collaboration.
WAIS test questions have also been leaked, and their difficulty level is quite low – they can only measure lower IQ ranges. Moreover, WAIS was originally invented to detect intellectual disability, not genius.
Jacobsen: How do you respond to concerns raised about undermining trust in high-IQ societies, high-range tests, and high-range test scores?
Yu: Don’t trust anyone.
Jacobsen: What steps do you believe high-IQ societies should take to make tests more cheat-resistant, especially for extreme high-range IQ tests?
Yu: Instead of being conservative with test security, I think we should open up the system. Let people freely discuss test answers, but invalidate all previous test questions. If someone wants to join a high-IQ club, they should take a new, timed test specifically created for them, with scoring scales estimated by experienced professionals.
Jacobsen: How do you reflect on your actions reshaping the landscape of high-IQ societies in China?
Yu: The obnoxious fellows disappeared, and Shenghan’s ability to amass wealth plummeted. But these are not enough; the ways of the high IQ community are backward and need to be revolutionized from the ground up.
Jacobsen: Do you believe these changes have broader implications for global high-IQ communities, even the potential to be adapted to other national and regional contexts–as your proposed solution is simply to make them hobbies more than anything?
Yu: My influence on global high-IQ communities has been limited because I haven’t spent energy boasting about myself globally. However, demystifying something that appears impressive is often a way to reduce fanaticism. This applies not just to high IQ scores, but also to academic credentials, money, power, and similar status symbols.
Jacobsen: What insights do you have into the ethical tensions between acknowledging flaws in high-IQ societies and the potential erosion of trust that comes with such transparency?
Yu: The trust issues in high-IQ societies have long existed. My choice to expose these problems isn’t creating a new crisis of trust, but rather revealing an already corrupted system. While this transparency might cause short-term disruption, it’s necessary in the long run.
Let me use a specific example: as I mentioned before, some so-called high-IQ society leaders have limited education yet act as if they possess supreme wisdom when collecting membership fees. This false authority has already eroded the foundation of trust within these societies.
I believe the real ethical tension isn’t about whether to reveal the truth, but about how to rebuild a healthier system. When I publicly sold answers, I was, in a way, demonstrating the system’s flaws through extreme means. This may damage some people’s trust in high-IQ tests, but that trust was built on a false foundation to begin with.
That’s why I suggest treating high-IQ testing as merely a hobby. When we stop placing excessive importance on these tests, we can more clearly see true wisdom and ability.
Jacobsen: How do you reconcile your past actions with your current stance on the value of IQ scores?
Yu: There’s no need to reconcile, because it’s not my business.
Jacobsen: Given the long history of leaked answers dating back to 2012 or earlier, what systemic changes do you think are necessary to address this issue on an international scale?
Yu: We can refer to the puzzle solving community.
Jacobsen: How might dynamic question pools and randomized testing reduce answer leakage, as in things like the DynamIQ Test of Marco and Roberto or the Adaptive IQ Test of some members of the Mega Society?
Yu: This is difficult to effectively prevent. After GFIS realized the problems I was causing, they switched to in-person testing with randomized questions and trusted proctors. Subsequently, I trained some people to achieve high scores, infiltrate GFIS internally, and gain the power to create test questions. Without government regulation, there’s no perfect solution.
From my perspective, we could use market economy methods – letting people openly discuss and freely explore these tests. The positive impacts of such openness would outweigh the negative ones.
This highlights the fundamental challenges in securing any testing system, even with dynamic approaches. When there’s sufficient motivation and capability, people can find ways to manipulate even well-designed systems. Sometimes, embracing transparency might be more effective than attempting to maintain strict security measures.
Jacobsen: What advice would you offer to high-IQ societies, test developers, and participants, to restore credibility and ensure the integrity of their communities and assessments?
Yu: The key issue isn’t really about restoring credibility or ensuring integrity – it’s about fundamentally rethinking what these communities and tests are trying to achieve. From my experience, both running an answer-selling operation and achieving legitimate high scores, I see several clear points:
For societies and test developers:
Accept that no test system will be completely secure, especially without government oversight
Instead of trying to create unbreakable tests, focus on making tests that are genuinely interesting intellectual challenges
Move away from treating scores as absolute measures of intelligence
Consider implementing time-limited testing sessions with new questions for each participant
Be transparent about limitations rather than pretending they don’t exist
For participants:
Treat these tests as intellectual hobbies rather than validation of worth
Focus on developing real-world capabilities and achievements
Understand that truly intelligent people don’t need to prove their intelligence through test scores
The hard truth is that many high-IQ societies are fundamentally flawed because they’re built on vanity and validation-seeking. Until this culture changes, no technical solution will fix the credibility problem.
Remember that even the most secure test systems can be compromised if people are determined enough. The solution isn’t to build higher walls, but to create a community that values hobby growth over numbers.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2). December 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 8). ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on I.Q. Test Leaks and Sales Gone Global, Trust Restoration, Reform, and Vanity (2) [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white-2.
Andrew Sliwa is the Managing Director of Custom Prototypes, a Toronto-based company that blends cutting-edge design with precision fabrication in various industries.
Under his leadership, the company has gained international recognition, notably clinching the Advanced Finishing category at the 2018 AMUG Technical Competition with a stunningly accurate recreation of a Praetorian Guard helmet. Since its modest beginnings in 1995, when just two employees crafted handmade prototypes, Custom Prototypes has become a leader in advanced 3D printing technologies.
Sliwa’s dedication to innovation and quality has firmly established the firm’s reputation in the prototyping world.
Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, his team has pivoted to developing state-of-the-art drones tailored for military applications, prioritizing extended range and AI-driven functionality. Beyond his technological ventures, Sliwa has become an outspoken voice on Canada’s defense spending, emphasizing the vital role of equipment manufacturing in supporting Ukraine’s resistance and highlighting technology’s transformative potential in shaping warfare’s future.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To begin, could you share your name and the position you hold?
Andrew Sliwa: I manage Custom Prototypes based in Etobicoke, Ontario. I run a service bureau specializing in product development. We are a small manufacturing facility utilizing various short-run production processes, such as 3D printing, CNC machining, plastic vacuum forming, and more.
Since the war in Ukraine began, we decided to contribute to the war effort. We recognized that we were in a good position to develop drones.
(Ukraine Ministry of Defence)
Jacobsen: Given the situation in Ukraine and the expanding role of drone technology, how critical do you think it is to develop drones with extended range and increased payload capacities?
Sliwa: Drone warfare is fundamentally changing the battlefield. Drones have become incredibly effective tools. Most drones we see today are commercial models modified to carry payloads.
Operators can locate and destroy targets with FPV goggles. However, FPV drones typically have a limited range—they can travel up to about 20 kilometers, but maintaining a video link restricts their operational range.
Jacobsen: Is using drones as signal relays to amplify their operational range technically viable? What are the limitations and possibilities of this approach?
Sliwa: There have been attempts to use relay stations to extend drone range. However, this method has practical limitations.
For this purpose, we are developing a fixed-wing drone designed for longer distances and higher payloads. The technology we are integrating includes an AI chip programmed with flight loops and a target area map. This technology compares the map with real-time imagery from the onboard camera.
This makes the drone nearly independent of GPS and pilot input, which means it cannot be easily jammed. Additionally, flying at low altitudes makes it challenging to detect and intercept. This drone can cover distances of up to 200 kilometres.
It is primarily designed as a one-way attack drone, meaning it does not return. However, it can also be used for reconnaissance missions if needed. That’s the concept behind it.
Jacobsen: Your drones, which can travel up to 200 kilometers while carrying heavier payloads, clearly offer advanced capabilities. Could you elaborate on their costs and the specific advantages they offer over other models?
Sliwa: I do not want to discuss the cost of this drone because we are not at the point where we can accurately price it. Drones of this class, fully equipped with electronics and motors, typically cost around $100,000. Historically, these drones were developed as targets for military use, primarily for anti-aircraft defence training.
However, in Ukraine, drones of this kind are being repurposed to fly deep into Russian territory to destroy ammunition depots and other critical infrastructure. They sometimes launch 100 to 300 drones simultaneously, knowing that many will be intercepted by anti-aircraft systems or jammed.
The costs of deploying 300 drones are significant, but the potential payoff—such as destroying an ammunition depot the size of a city—is far greater than the cost of the drones.
Jacobsen: Shortly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, on March 2nd, the United Nations General Assembly convened an emergency session. During this meeting, Resolution A/ES-11/1 was passed, strongly condemning Russia’s actions and calling for the withdrawal of troops from all occupied territories in Ukraine. How do you interpret the significance of this resolution in shaping global solidarity with Ukraine?
Sliwa: Wow, and you remember all that.
Jacobsen: The resolution received overwhelming support—141 votes in favor against only five opposed, with abstentions aside. Nations like North Korea, which eventually sent troops to support Russia, stood in opposition. The global response highlights a near-universal consensus backing Ukraine. For countries not aligned with this sentiment, are they, in your view, isolating themselves from the dominant international ethos? How does Canada’s role, largely providing financial and material support, exemplify this alignment?
Sliwa: That’s accurate. There’s a common belief that Canada sends money, but that’s incorrect. Canada sends equipment manufactured in Canada. The funds allocated go to Canadian companies that produce this equipment, which is then shipped to Ukraine. We don’t send cash alone; we send valuable equipment instead.
Jacobsen: Yes, I wouldn’t want to oversimplify it by saying Canadians give money—money alone isn’t a weapon you can fire.
Sliwa: That’s correct.
Jacobsen: For Canadians seeking clarity, what’s the simplest way to illustrate how their financial support contributes to practical outcomes in the war? Specifically, could you detail how such funds are helping manufacture affordable, locally produced Ukrainian defense equipment and why that approach matters?
Sliwa: Wow, that’s a political question. All decisions in support of Ukraine are political and based on debates and discussions. How much we allocate to defence has been a topic of debate for a long time. Canada doesn’t even meet its NATO spending commitments. As NATO members, we are supposed to allocate 2% of our GDP to defence.
So, 2%, but we are only at about 1.4%. Among NATO countries, we are among the lowest contributors. Most NATO countries pay their share, but Canada does not.
We feel secure simply being next to the United States and assume they will defend us if something happens. However, we fail to recognize that we share a border with Russia. Russia even planted a flag under the North Pole, claiming it as Russian territory.
How concerning is that? They claim the North Pole as their territory, yet we neglect our military. It doesn’t seem to be a priority for Canada, which is unpleasant.
Anna Mysyshyn stands at the crossroads of law, technology, and global governance—a Ukrainian legal scholar whose expertise in AI policy, cybersecurity, and digital governance places her at the vanguard of some of today’s most pressing challenges. With a Ph.D. in Law from Ivan Franko Lviv National University and an LL.M. in Innovation, Technology, and Law from the University of Edinburgh, Anna’s academic credentials are as impressive as her practical achievements.
As the Director and Co-Founder of the Institute of Innovative Governance, she leads transformative initiatives to foster digital inclusion and ensure secure transitions to digital landscapes. Her career spans international platforms, from working with the United Nations and UNDP in Ukraine to serving as a fellow in the Canadian Parliament. Most recently, as a research fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Anna has focused on the cutting-edge application of advanced technologies in the war in Ukraine—adding a timely and poignant dimension to her already remarkable career.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: AI has rapidly transformed the landscape of propaganda. How is this technological evolution reshaping its use in today’s political and social contexts?
Anna Mysyshyn: Focusing on the Ukrainian situation, the rapid advancement of AI technologies has significantly enhanced the ability to generate and disseminate disinformation and propaganda on a massive scale and at unprecedented speed. The advent of generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning technologies has dramatically transformed the landscape of information warfare and general information dissemination.
Emerging technologies, particularly generative AI, are widely utilized in informational warfare to spread propaganda and disinformation. Russia, for instance, deploys false narratives through highly sophisticated and interconnected networks. These networks include AI-generated content disseminated via traditional state-controlled media, social media platforms, and other technological mediums. Despite being a country with significant economic challenges, Russia has capitalized on these technologies to amplify its influence.
Pictured: Anna Mysyshyn. (Facebook)
Jacobsen: Do these emerging forms of information warfare offer a cost-effective strategy for states or other actors?
Mysyshyn: This represents a relatively low-cost but highly impactful form of warfare. Before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia had already invested over $9 billion in propaganda campaigns, primarily using digital platforms and traditional media outlets like newspapers. However, with the emergence of technologies such as generative AI, especially after the boom in AI platforms like OpenAI in 2022, propaganda has evolved into a hybrid format.
This modern approach combines traditional media with advanced AI tools to confuse audiences, erode trust, and manipulate public perception of political figures and situations. By employing generative AI, propaganda becomes not only faster and cheaper to produce but also more convincing and harder to detect, posing a significant threat to information integrity and democratic resilience.
What makes this even more concerning is the scalability of AI-driven propaganda. With tools capable of generating thousands of variations of the same disinformation narrative, actors like Russia can target specific demographics with tailored messaging. These campaigns exploit existing social and political divisions, creating a ripple effect that destabilizes societies.
A critical challenge today is detecting AI-generated propaganda. These hybrid methods show that AI technologies are not only accessible but also more persuasive to the general public.
Jacobsen: In terms of impact, how effective are these AI-driven tools? Do they lead to significant shifts in public opinion, or are their effects more subtle and insidious?
Mysyshyn: AI technologies enable Russian propagandists to craft highly targeted and emotionally charged narratives that are difficult to differentiate from authentic content. Platforms such as TikTok, often viewed as harmless entertainment spaces, are increasingly used to spread harmful disinformation. This is particularly effective because many people consume information on social media without fact-checking tools or sufficient media literacy skills to verify what they encounter.
Since people are inclined to trust the information they read or see in the media and are often unaware of the extent to which AI can fabricate content, the impact of disinformation becomes even more significant. This highlights the urgent need for enhanced fact-checking resources and improved media literacy to counter the rising influence of AI-driven propaganda.
Unfortunately, people often believe everything they see and read due to low media literacy skills. Russia understands this and is increasingly disseminating information using a mixed approach. They combine real, factual information with AI-generated, fake narratives. This combination easily confuses individuals because they may read one publication that contains truthful information but then encounter a second one – AI-generated and presenting a false narrative, which they might also perceive as true.
This mix of techniques makes it easier to mislead individuals lacking media literacy or fact-checking skills.
The effectiveness of these tools lies in their dual impact, combining immediate and long-term effects. In the short term, they can change public perception, especially when deployed during war or political instability. Fabricated videos or AI-generated “official” statements can rapidly erode trust in public institutions, fuel polarization, or incite unrest. However, their more insidious and enduring impact becomes evident over time. Disinformation campaigns work gradually to weaken societal cohesion, erode trust in democratic institutions, and amplify social divisions.
The cumulative effect is that the public becomes increasingly confused and skeptical of all information sources, fostering an environment where truth is devalued and irrelevant.
Jacobsen: You referenced generational differences and AI tools tailored to these variations. Could you delve deeper into what sets these apart?
Mysyshyn: Yes, indeed. Media literacy skills are critical core competencies, especially in generational differences and the rise of generative AI tools. As AI technologies become more sophisticated and accessible, the ability to critically evaluate and verify information is essential for navigating the modern media landscape.
For younger generations, who are digital natives, media literacy involves understanding how algorithms and AI shape the content they encounter on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, or YouTube. Many are unaware that tailored content is designed to capture attention and provoke emotional responses. Teaching them to question authenticity and recognize manipulation is vital for building resilience against disinformation.
For older generations, media literacy requires addressing their trust in traditional media formats. This demographic is particularly vulnerable to AI-generated content mimicking authoritative sources, such as deepfake videos or fabricated news articles. Developing their ability to identify such fabrications is crucial to countering the spread of false narratives.
What’s particularly concerning is how generative AI tools exploit the unique habits of each generation. Younger audiences are targeted through short, visually engaging content on social media, while older audiences are influenced by AI-driven material that reinforces existing trust in traditional media. Addressing these tailored approaches requires generationally nuanced media literacy strategies to equip all individuals with the tools to discern fact from fiction.
Jacobsen: What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation, particularly in their intent and impact?
Mysyshyn: Disinformation refers to deliberately false or misleading information spread to deceive or manipulate, while misinformation is incorrect information shared without malicious intent. For example, Russian propaganda often uses disinformation to manipulate public opinion by spreading false narratives about the war in Ukraine. However, misinformation can also occur when individuals with low media literacy or even major media outlets share misleading content without fact-checking. In both cases, spreading false information can have harmful effects, even if the intent differs.
Jacobsen: In what ways should information warfare be conceptualized as a legitimate form of modern warfare?
Mysyshyn: Information warfare is a form of warfare because it targets societal trust, cohesion, and decision-making processes, often intending to destabilize or weaken an adversary. While it lacks the physical devastation of traditional warfare, its effects can be equally profound, especially in highly polarized or vulnerable societies. AI technologies have amplified these impacts, transforming information warfare into a sophisticated tool for manipulation and disruption.
In my GMF paper, Advanced Technologies in the War in Ukraine: Risks for Democracy and Human Rights, I examined how Russia has weaponized generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning technologies to erode trust, destabilize Ukraine, and influence international perceptions of the war.
For example, AI-generated deepfake videos, such as one depicting President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing Ukraine’s surrender – spread rapidly on social media and caused widespread confusion, even after being debunked. Similarly, altered audio tracks using voice-cloning tools have been employed to create fake messages from Ukrainian leaders, sowing discord and demoralization.
These disinformation campaigns are designed to weaken Ukraine internally and undermine international support, particularly from Western allies. By spreading manipulative narratives, such as fabricated stories of corruption, inefficiency, or infighting, they seek to create skepticism abroad about the legitimacy and effectiveness of Ukrainian leadership.
This erosion of trust can reduce public support for aid and military assistance, which is vital for Ukraine’s defense efforts. Information warfare’s objectives align with traditional military goals, which are to weaken the enemy and disrupt their strategies.
Jacobsen: What strategies should democratic societies adopt to counter these evolving threats effectively?
Mysyshyn: Democratic societies can address the threat of AI-driven information warfare through a multifaceted approach that includes education, technology, policy, and collaboration. Public education, particularly media literacy, must equip individuals with the skills to recognize and counter disinformation.
In 2023, our Institute of Innovative Governance developed A Guide for Content Creators to Identify and Combat Russian Propaganda in Emerging Technologies and conducted lectures on AI and disinformation at leading Ukrainian universities. Initiatives like StopFake, Nota Yenota, and various government-led programs have strengthened Ukraine’s efforts to build media literacy and societal resilience. These programs emphasize core critical thinking strategies, such as questioning sources, verifying information, and analyzing biases, which are essential in helping individuals navigate the modern information landscape.
Developing trust in media is equally critical. Societies must support independent journalism and fact-checking initiatives that prioritize transparency and accountability. For example, Detector Media has played a vital role in Ukraine, fostering trust by exposing disinformation and providing verified reliable news. Similarly, public awareness campaigns must focus on promoting trustworthy media outlets and encouraging audiences to engage critically with the content they consume. Trust in media is a cornerstone of societal cohesion, especially during war or political instability.
Investing in advanced detection tools is another crucial step. Ukrainian organizations such as Osavul and Let’s Data, Mantis Analytics, and international companies like Originality.ai and OpenOrigins have played key roles in developing technologies to detect and debunk deepfakes and AI-generated propaganda quickly and effectively. These tools counter disinformation campaigns that exploit emerging technologies to spread fabricated narratives designed to mislead or destabilize.
By combining media literacy, critical thinking, trust-building in media, and cutting-edge technological solutions, democratic societies can build resilience against the growing threat of AI-driven information warfare. Ukraine’s proactive approach demonstrates how these strategies can be implemented effectively to protect domestic and international audiences from manipulation.
Jacobsen: How are autocratic regimes leveraging these technologies to pose new and unique challenges to the free world?
Mysyshyn: Well, these regimes exploit technological innovations to wage information warfare, conduct cyberattacks, and surveil populations both domestically and abroad, creating significant risks for open societies. Russia has weaponized AI to create and disseminate deepfakes, voice clones, and other forms of fabricated content.
Autocratic regimes also pose a technological challenge by exporting surveillance tools to suppress dissent and monitor citizens. China, for instance, has developed sophisticated facial recognition surveillance systems that track individuals’ movements, online behavior, and even emotional responses. These tools are being exported to other autocratic states, enabling a global spread of authoritarian control mechanisms that undermine freedoms and human rights.
Cyberattacks are another dimension of this threat. Autocracies increasingly use advanced cyber capabilities to target critical infrastructure in democracies, including energy grids, financial systems, and public health databases.
The freer world faces a dual challenge: protecting its values while countering autocracies’ misuse of emerging technologies.
Jacobsen: Could these same technologies be harnessed to empower dissenters and dissidents within authoritarian regimes?
Mysyshyn: Yes, these technologies can empower dissenters and dissidents in less free countries by providing tools for secure communication, spreading information, and documenting abuses. They also play an increasingly important role in accountability and justice, particularly in wartime scenarios. Technologies based on blockchain provide a decentralized and tamper-proof means of recording evidence of human rights abuses.
Additionally, AI-enhanced tools can assist in verifying, categorizing, and securely storing such data. Communication platforms such as Signal, powered by advanced encryption technologies, have become lifelines for activists and defenders. To maximize the empowering potential of these technologies, democratic societies and international organizations must support secure, open-source tools, invest in training for activists, and push back against the misuse of technology by authoritarian regimes. These efforts and ongoing innovation can help level the playing field for dissenters fighting for freedom.
Jacobsen: Finally, in the face of blatant and absurd narratives—like labeling Ukraine’s Jewish president as a neo-Nazi—what tools and resources does Ukraine need most urgently to counter such misinformation?
Mysyshyn: Ukraine needs a comprehensive strategy to combat misinformation, combining technological innovation, public education, media collaboration, and international support. The sheer absurdity of certain disinformation only highlights its manipulative intent and potential to mislead, regardless of how outrageous it may seem.
These narratives often exploit preexisting biases, emotional responses, and gaps in media literacy, making them surprisingly effective. Once again, this emphasizes the crucial need for critical thinking and diligent fact-checking – because, in a world saturated with disinformation, questioning the narrative is not just a skill but a responsibility.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Anna.
Mysyshyn: You’re very welcome! It was a pleasure. Thank you for your time as well.
Oleksandr Kalitenko, a Ukrainian legal expert, stands out as a pioneering figure in the fight against corruption. One of only three Ukrainians awarded a government grant to study in Lithuania, Kalitenko pursued a graduate degree in European Union and International Law. His academic journey began with a specialization in Commercial Law and culminated in a master’s thesis supervised by the head of Lithuania’s Constitutional Court.
Kalitenko’s international legal training extends beyond academia. He gained practical experience at a leading Swedish law firm that twice earned the prestigious British Legal Awards for the best European law office. His résumé is also enriched by voluntary work and a deep commitment to public service, including researching whistleblower protections across the European Union. His findings informed recommendations for Transparency International Latvia and an expert group led by Latvia’s prime minister, shaping the groundwork for future whistleblower legislation.
Between 2014 and 2018, Kalitenko spearheaded grassroots campaigns such as “They Would Not Be Silent,” which aimed to dismantle public stigma against anti-corruption activists and promote a culture of accountability. This work earned him a European Union grant and further cemented his role as a thought leader in transparency and governance.
Kalitenko’s influence extends into Ukraine’s evolving legal landscape. Since 2014, he has been crucial in drafting and advocating anti-corruption legislation, often amid immense political and social challenges. He has lectured widely, coordinated volunteers, and co-authored studies on Ukraine’s burgeoning anti-corruption ecosystem. His insights on asset declaration, conflicts of interest, and governmental transparency resonate at national and international forums.
Currently serving as a legal adviser at Transparency International Ukraine, Kalitenko is at the forefront of efforts to reform Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure amid the turmoil of war. He underscores the importance of building robust institutions from the ground up, citing Ukraine’s distinct reform trajectory and significant achievements in public procurement and asset declaration—areas where, remarkably, it has outpaced some European Union countries. Despite setbacks, such as delays in establishing the High Anti-Corruption Court, Kalitenko remains optimistic about Ukraine’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption and its capacity for transformative change.
For Kalitenko, the path forward lies in maintaining momentum, fostering international partnerships, and addressing systemic challenges head-on. His vision reflects hope and a determination to see Ukraine emerge stronger, more transparent, and more just—a model for other nations grappling with corruption.
Pictured: Oleksandr Kalitenko. (Transparency International Ukraine)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As a legal adviser at Transparency International Ukraine, your work spans anti-corruption and commercial law, mainly focusing on international legal frameworks. You completed a thesis in Lithuania analyzing the responsibilities of states and international organizations for wrongful acts. Can you walk us through the key findings of your research and how they inform your current anti-corruption efforts?
Oleksandr Kalitenko: That was a crucial part of my master’s thesis, which was the final stage of my program at Vilnius University in Lithuania. They offer an LLM program focused on International and European Union law. I chose this topic because I was interested in comparing the responsibilities of states and international organizations.
I selected one of my professors, who later became the head of Lithuania’s Constitutional Court. At that time, he was my professor in international organizations, so it was a logical choice to have him as my thesis supervisor. My research was exciting because I began by examining how the United Nations responded to international crises, such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Unsurprisingly, some international organizations could have responded better to crises. History seems to be repeating itself, as we saw recently with António Guterres’s visit to Russia and his meeting with Vladimir Putin, a wanted war criminal. Even while working on my thesis, I observed that international organizations often failed to respond adequately to crises, which influenced my decision to pursue my current career.
After completing my studies in Lithuania, I decided to volunteer for Transparency International because non-governmental organizations are often more effective than bureaucratic government bodies. It was a natural decision for me. I started as a volunteer and intern at Transparency International Ukraine in 2014, following a successful internship with Transparency International Latvia in Riga. I chose the Baltic because I was very interested in how these post-Soviet states became successful members of the European Union, NATO, Schengen area, etc., and what needs to be done in Ukraine to follow a similar path.
During my internship in Latvia, I began researching international best practices for whistleblower protection. This interest originated from my master’s thesis, where I noted that whistleblowers often spoke out about issues within international organizations. Still, their concerns were not met with proper responses. This led me to collect information for the new whistleblower protection law in Latvia, which was under development in 2013.
Whistleblower protection wasn’t a prominent issue in Ukraine then, particularly during Viktor Yanukovych’s rule. Therefore, I chose to focus on the Latvian model and worked as part of a team to contribute to developing whistleblower protection frameworks.
The Latvian prime minister headed it, and the goal of this working group was to collect all the international best practices and recommendations to draft a strong whistleblower protection law in Latvia. Later, I can say that my future work—I’ve been working for Transparency International for 10 years, currently with the Ukrainian chapter—has been very much connected with whistleblower protection and anti-corruption prevention. I believe it is far more effective to protect whistleblowers through legislation than to be a typical lawyer who can only protect one client at a time. For example, fighting for good laws that protect many people, including whistleblowers, is much better.
That was the conclusion of my master’s thesis: I want to protect as many people as possible. In addition to whistleblower protection, I work on legal issues related to asset declarations and conflict-of-interest prevention and the analysis of international best practices in anti-corruption measures and policies. I’m also involved in the CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index) analysis. Transparency International releases this study annually. Part of my expertise is analyzing trends in martial law, corruption, and what we observe in our CPI studies.
Corruption, amongst other issues, helped drive Viktor Yanukovych from power. (Wikimedia)
Jacobsen: What were the most significant findings from your research on whistleblower laws across EU countries?
Kalitenko: The EU has a directive on whistleblower protection related to reporting breaches of EU law. This year, another directive was adopted to combat what’s known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), used to harass whistleblowers. In such cases, companies with large legal teams or even government-influenced organizations might start legal proceedings against whistleblowers to distract them from their reporting by burdening them with lawsuits.
The European Union now has these two directives. We’ve researched the implementation of the first directive on whistleblower protection for breaches of EU law. Unfortunately, the implementation has not been ideal. Some countries missed the deadline set by the EU for integrating the directive’s provisions into their national laws.
Sadly, some countries introduced draft laws that were not fully aligned with the EU directive. This wasn’t very helpful because the EU had set good standards with this directive, especially when it was introduced five years ago. But again, the real issue is the question of implementation.
There has been some progress, and the situation is better than it once was. However, Transparency International conducted research that revealed almost every country still needs to fully implement the EU directive on whistleblower protection, even five years after its adoption. So, again, it could be a better result. I had higher expectations, but this may reflect a lack of political will to adopt it properly.
Jacobsen: Shifting to Ukraine, what unique challenges do whistleblowers face, particularly under the updated legislation passed before the full-scale war with Russia?
Kalitenko: Before the war with Russia, we updated the law on whistleblower protection. Unfortunately, some provisions of this law had gaps that still needed to be addressed.
One such gap, for example, is that only corruption whistleblowers are protected in Ukraine. This does not align with the EU directive, which provides a broader definition of whistleblowers. Whistleblowers reporting on human rights violations, transport safety, food safety, or medical equipment safety should be protected, not just those reporting corruption. But currently, the law only protects people who report corruption, and this issue needs to be fixed.
Another issue is that some forms of protection exist only on paper. For example, the law provides for psychological assistance and support for whistleblowers. However, this exists only in theory, as no proper system has been established to offer real psychological support. Another issue involves the unified portal for whistleblowers and their reports.
This portal was created last year as a user-friendly platform, a one-stop window for whistleblowers to report potential wrongdoing. However, we have found that it lacks sufficient anonymity and confidentiality measures to protect whistleblowers in line with international best practices. This is another area that needs improvement, and the portal is currently administered by Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). We have submitted recommendations on what needs to be fixed in the portal and are working with them to address these issues.
There are other concerns as well. For instance, whistleblowers who disclose state secrets are not protected, nor are those who expose minor corruption.
The law also covers whistleblowers and their close relatives, but it does not protect those who assist whistleblowers. According to the EU directive, such individuals should be covered as well. Of course, we also have recommendations from the OECD and other international organizations. Still, some significant issues remain with whistleblower protection in Ukraine.
Jacobsen: During the “They Would Not Be Silent” campaign, you sought to reshape public attitudes toward corruption and whistleblowers. What were some of the most challenging obstacles you encountered in running that campaign?
Kalitenko: We launched that campaign in 2015. It was needed because of the post-Soviet attitude toward whistleblowers. People often referred to whistleblowers as “snitches,” implying that they were not good citizens because they exposed wrongdoing that should have been kept silent. So, we tried to change this perception with the help of donors, partners from advertising agencies, and companies like McDonald’s, KFC, and some cinema theatres that aired our video campaign.
We depicted the moral authorities of the Ukrainian nation. These figures are shown in our currency, the hryvnia, and the banknotes. These individuals are famous writers and moral figures studied in schools, teaching young people about values and what is right and wrong. The campaign showed these figures with their mouths closed by rubber bands, conveying that these moral authorities would not remain silent in the face of corruption. We wanted to create an association for average Ukrainians with these figures, showing that they, too, should not be silent when they witness corruption.
We launched this campaign when sociological data showed that only about 30% of Ukrainians were willing to report corruption. This was a very limited number, and we wanted to raise it, moving closer to Western societies, where 90-95% of people declare that they would report wrongdoing.
We consulted psychologists, who explained that it would likely take about 15 years to change such attitudes and perceptions about whistleblowers in society. This is a big issue, and it won’t change with just one or two campaigns, even if they are nationwide. So, we started this campaign and continued similar efforts in the following years.
I was proud of the results of these campaigns. We surveyed whether the average Ukrainian had seen our advertisements and what they thought about them. Of course, the war has accelerated the process, but according to the latest survey data, 81% of Ukrainians are now ready to become whistleblowers and report corruption.
Jacobsen: Campaigns like this often aim to shift public perceptions. With 81% of Ukrainians now expressing a willingness to act as whistleblowers, how has your work influenced this shift in attitudes toward anti-corruption efforts?
Kalitenko: We’ve had to combat certain perceptions among Ukrainians. For instance, in our later campaigns, we addressed the common belief that if a corrupt official steals money from the budget, many Ukrainians saw the state budget as an abstract concept, not something concrete or connected to their lives.
One of our campaigns aimed to show Ukrainians that they directly contribute to the state budget through their taxes. Even if they don’t realize it, they pay taxes when they go to the grocery store and buy food because we have a VAT (value-added tax). This was an important message, as many people didn’t understand the direct link between their actions and the state’s resources.
Some people also pay taxes when they refuel their cars, as there are additional state taxes on fuel. Taxes are also added to cigarettes and alcohol products, so it’s not just about income taxes. Together with our partners, we provided an online calculator that allowed people to enter the amount of money they spent and earned each month, such as their salary. It would show them how much tax they were paying to the state. We wanted to foster the perception that the state budget is not an abstract concept. When a corrupt official steals, they steal from us.
This was another successful campaign that I’m proud of because many Ukrainians didn’t see themselves as taxpayers, but they are. Through this and other campaigns, we also offered legal advice for everyday operations where people might encounter corruption, such as in the education system, hospitals, or state administrative licenses.
Public polling showed that even Ukrainian youth at the time were not motivated to defend their rights for various reasons. Some believed there was no point in protecting their violated rights; others didn’t know how to do so legally or didn’t trust the system, including the judicial system. Instead, they turned to corrupt schemes to get services from the state.
We wanted to show how misguided this behavior is. If you’ve already paid taxes and then paid a bribe for a service you should receive for free, you’re not being clever by gaming the system—you’re being foolish. You’ve paid for the service twice: once with your taxes and again with the bribe. That’s not intelligent behavior, and we aimed to change that mindset.
According to the latest data, since 2007, the readiness to protect rights among Ukrainians has been at its highest level, at around 52%. More than half of the population is willing to protect their rights. I see this as an essential element of living in a legal state—living according to the law and protecting your rights through legal means, not corruption.
Jacobsen: As Ukraine pursues closer ties with the EU, public pressure often drives governments to introduce or refine policies. Are any significant anti-corruption policies currently being proposed or implemented locally or nationally?
Kalitenko: Ukraine has adopted a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy, with concrete measures across different sectors to combat and prevent corruption. These anti-corruption policy documents have also received positive evaluations from our European partners.
The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is now monitoring the level of implementation of these anti-corruption documents. Recently, some changes were made to reflect the current conditions better. Still, these are solid, evidence-based strategic documents that address the challenges and problems we face today. With measures, indicators, responsible persons and institutions, and deadlines for implementation, these documents should serve as a vital tool for combating corruption. However, this is just one instrument. Another critical tool is asset declaration.
The unified registry of electronic asset declarations was reestablished last year on a public online platform. Now, officials have submitted millions of asset declarations into this system, visible to investigative journalists, civil society activists, or anyone interested in examining a local official’s declaration. This is a significant prevention tool, as these asset declarations cover a wide range of assets and can reveal inconsistencies or lies and cases of illicit enrichment, potential conflicts of interest, or assets acquired without proper justification.
The third instrument I would highlight is reestablishing the obligation for political parties in Ukraine to submit their financial reports for verification. These financial reports are also public, allowing anyone to see a political party’s donors and how it spends its money. This is another essential tool that was reestablished last year. Like the asset declaration registry, it had been closed to public access following the full-scale invasion but has now been reopened.
Additionally, I recommend the complete restoration of competitive processes in public procurement. We have a good tool called Prozorro, the electronic public procurement system, which investigative journalists use extensively to monitor for wrongdoing in this area. So, overall, despite the war with Russia, Ukraine has demonstrated significant progress in fighting corruption.
Our Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) has shown that countries fighting a war typically decline their scores as corruption increases under such circumstances. However, Ukraine gained an additional 3 points last year, one of the best results globally. The CPI covers nearly 200 countries and territories, and Ukraine has shown a remarkable upward trend. Over the past 10 years, we have gained 11 points, placing us among the top 15 countries in terms of improvement.
We have now reached a level comparable to other EU candidate states, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Turkey, Serbia, and North Macedonia. This means we are on par with those countries regarding perceived corruption and are ready to be a successful candidate for EU membership.
However, we still have significant potential to continue fighting corruption. The corruption scandals that have appeared in the media over the past few years indicate that our anti-corruption institutions—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC)—are functioning well. These institutions were built from scratch and can still demonstrate effective results, even in wartime.
Jacobsen: Managing long-term projects like these involves ensuring volunteers deliver consistent results. How do you set performance expectations and maintain quality across such diverse efforts?
Kalitenko: We have setbacks, of course, but this should also be adequately reflected in the volunteers’ expectations when they submit their CVs for consideration to avoid future disappointments. Anti-corruption work is a marathon, not a sprint; our Corruption Perceptions Index clearly shows this. While we’ve gained points in some years, we’ve also lost points at times. For instance, we lost points when anti-corruption activists were attacked on the national and regional levels. There were setbacks due to delays in the formation of the High Anti-Corruption Court. Before it was established, cases investigated by NABU and SAPO were transferred to general courts, where they often collected dust because the judges did not prioritize them.
This caused a significant delay in demonstrating a solid track record in anti-corruption efforts. We also faced a considerable challenge in 2020 when the Constitutional Court made a scandalous decision almost to cancel the entire asset declaration system and limit the powers of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, which is responsible for verifying such declarations. Though this was eventually reversed after a few months, over 100 cases investigated by the anti-corruption system were closed, and some officials were even acquitted in court.
The article on illicit enrichment was also canceled in the criminal code by the Constitutional Court. This hurt the anti-corruption fight, as cases of illicit enrichment involving officials were closed. So yes, we’ve had rollbacks on our anti-corruption path. Still, international partners and civil society have played a significant role in helping us move forward. Their conditionalities—such as those set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or European partners for financial aid, grants, and credits—have been powerful levers.
However, Ukraine did not meet all of these conditionalities. I recall a case from about seven years ago when Ukraine lost nearly €600 million in aid because we failed to start properly verifying officials’ asset declarations. That was a sensitive issue for us. But together with our international partners, civil society has been able to advocate for anti-corruption measures and push for political will at the government level.
Jacobsen: International partners like Canada and the United States have offered varied support—financial aid from Canada and arms assistance from the U.S. Beyond monetary contributions, what forms of international help—be it expertise, personnel, or institutional collaboration—would be most impactful in strengthening Ukraine’s anti-corruption initiatives?
Kalitenko: International partners have contributed significantly to Ukrainian reforms, and it’s not just about sending cash. For example, they’ve helped by nominating internationally recognized experts to selection commissions for key positions within major institutions. This kind of support—expertise, and personnel—can be far more impactful than just financial aid, as it ensures that the right people are appointed to lead vital anti-corruption and reform efforts.
I could mention the NABU, SAPO, and other institutions, so one option for international partners is to nominate strong experts to select commissions for heads of Ukrainian institutions and as independent external auditors. For example, we’ve already seen an audit report on the efficiency of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). This report, published last summer, was the first time any anti-corruption institution in Ukraine faced an external audit. Another audit will be conducted soon, and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) also began its audit last month, with the participation of international experts.
This involvement is crucial because it brings international expertise and best practices. For example, the NACP audit included an expert from the United States. These experts provide valuable recommendations based on their international experience, which is essential for our reforms and understanding the lessons learned. So, bringing in expertise is another critical role international partners can play.
Jacobsen: Zero tolerance for corruption is a bold and aspirational standard. Given the ongoing war, is this goal feasible now, or should it remain a long-term target? How do you balance the urgency of wartime anti-corruption measures with the ambition of zero tolerance?
Kalitenko: Ukrainian society has already demonstrated a strong zero-tolerance attitude toward corruption. It’s not just about people declaring their readiness to be whistleblowers—there’s a broader societal shift. Before the full-scale war, about one-third of the population justified corruption as a useful tool to solve problems or access services more quickly than others. But now, that mindset has changed significantly.
It’s not just about petty corruption, though it has its cost. Now, Ukrainians show much less tolerance for corruption overall, and this shift has created a more favorable political environment. People no longer justify corruption as they once did, which is a significant change. This zero-tolerance attitude is essential for the war effort and the long-term success of Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms.
After the Maidan Revolution, Ukraine announced that its number one goal was combating corruption. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we’ve had setbacks along the way. Still, it’s impressive that reforms, including anti-corruption efforts, have continued even during the full-scale war. I expect the pace of reform to accelerate even more after the war.
We’ve already set reasonable standards for the region. For instance, our whistleblower protection and asset declaration systems set a high bar—not even all EU countries have the same level of asset declaration coverage as Ukraine or the same level of transparency in public procurement. It’s an optimistic sign that we’ve been able to build this anti-corruption infrastructure from scratch. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Ukraine should follow the example of more prosperous countries. Our circumstances are unique, and some decisions we’ve made here are exclusive to our situation.
Of course, we should still follow international recommendations. But I’d argue that we’ve already exceeded specific EU standards in some areas, like public procurement. So, yes, we have some promising sectors where Ukraine could even set best practices for other countries. I’m optimistic about this.
We should continue to find and follow our path because our circumstances—especially during a full-scale war—are unique, and we must address them appropriately.
Jacobsen: A final question, turning briefly to Russia: Has the war led to increased corruption within Russia’s control areas, or has it prompted reforms or tighter controls?
Kalitenko: We haven’t researched this point in-depth, but I can tell you the facts from the Corruption Perceptions Index. According to the CPI, Russia’s score has decreased, meaning the perceived level of corruption has increased.
Jacobsen: Oleksandr, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you.
Kalitenko: Thank you for your questions and for the invitation to do this interview.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Warning sounds are again being made about Operation Christmas Child: a seemingly innocent Christmas gift-giving initiative operating in schools across the UK.
Operation Christmas Child, is an annual initiative which encourages parents and children to donate gifts for ‘shoeboxes’ which are sent to underprivileged children in developing countries. What many parents and teachers don’t know is that it is closely associated with Samaritan’s Purse, which is itself linked to William Franklin Graham III, a controversial American Christian evangelist. Humanists UK is calling for schools to disclose the complete information to parents before promoting donations and suggests exploring alternative, more inclusive options.
Son of well-known evangelist preacher Billy Graham, Franklin Graham has a history of making homophobicremarks, and once called for Muslims to be ‘barred from immigrating to America’. Graham is also an advocate of a complete ban on abortion and a regular attendee and speaker and the annual ‘March for Life’.
The annual Operation Christmas Child shoebox appeal is often promoted and supported by schools as a positive way to support those in need during the festive season. Despite its seemingly altruistic goals, the initiative dispatches shoeboxes filled with toys, books, and gifts to vulnerable children in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, Samaritan’s Purse incorporates religious literature into the gift boxes after they leave schools. Humanists UK argues that this approach is exploiting generosity of British parents by using their innocent gifts as tools to convert poor and vulnerable children to Franklin Graham’s brand of evangelical Christianity.
Humanists UK asks schools and parents to consider non-religious gift-giving alternatives such as Oxfam and Children in Need, and has created a template letter for parents to send to schools which outlines their concerns and urges schools to reconsider their support for the Operation Christmas Child scheme. Parents are also encouraged to email campaigns@humanists.uk with any questions, or updates on correspondence with schools on this issue.
In 2022 parents at an evangelical faith school in England raised concerns with the school about supporting Operation Christmas Child. This resulted in the school concluding that the organisation’s values were ‘not in line with a school where pupils can be themselves and are respected and celebrated for who they are.’
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘This is a generous and festive time of year, and we know children like to feel that they are helping other young people less fortunate than themselves. It’s no surprise, then, that Operation Christmas Child is successful at attracting donations from schools across the country. However, I’m sure many parents would, once they know the full facts behind Operation Christmas Child, prefer that their support was directed elsewhere.
‘There are plenty of suitable alternatives, and being more humanist than humbug we’re asking parents to speak with their children’s schools and look at other ways to bring Christmas joy to disadvantaged children – minus the veiled evangelism.‘
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has today published research exploring public views on assisted dying. The survey shows that 70% of people support a change in the law, rising to 75% among disabled people. Humanists UK welcomes this new study, which adds to the growing call for politicians to back Kim Leadbeater MP’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill being debated in the House of Commons on 29 November.
The report states:
‘When those who support a change in the law were asked to give the reasons for their view in their own words, the most commonly given explanations were that someone terminally ill or without quality of life should be allowed to end their life (49%), that people should not have to suffer (47%) and that people should have a right to choose (44%).’
Among the minority of the public who oppose a change in the law, the explanation most common given to explain this point of view was religious beliefs (22%). This is in spite of the fact that most publicly expressed opposition to assisted dying, including from religious stakeholders, is couched in secular language.
Richy Thompson, Director of Public Affairs at Humanists UK, said:
‘This report validates all previous research and yet again shows the public desire for politicians to support this law change. Compassion at the end of life should be the only driving force.
‘Safeguards work in 31 other jurisdictions to make sure assisted dying laws can operate successfully and conscientious objection for medical staff will be in place to protect those whose worldviews do not align with the principle of this law. The public clearly wants this change and now is the time to act.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The time could soon be up for Bishops in the House of Lords
Yesterday peers from across the House of Lords called for the removal of the bishops in a debate on Lords reform. The debate, put forward by the Government, covered all forms of reform, but it became clear that for many in the chamber the removal of bishops is a high priority.
Currently 26 bishops of the Church of England are in the House of Lords as of right and are allowed to sit, vote, and debate legislation. Humanists UK briefed members of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) ahead of the debate. Today it welcomed peers’ contributions and hopes that they demonstrate to the Government that it is high time for reform.
In total, nine peers spoke up in favour of removing the bishops, four called for a reduction in number, and only one defended their presence – the Bishop of Sheffield.
Peers speaking out for removal of the bishops included Labour APPHG member Lord Foulkes who said: ‘Some noble Lords have suggested that we should get rid of the Bishops. I agree. They represent just one religion in one part of the United Kingdom and that is indefensible.’
Crossbench APPHG member Lord Birt said: ‘There is wide agreement that many hereditaries and Bishops make invaluable individual contributions, but their participation in this House by right is an historic anomaly not mirrored anywhere else in the democratic world, and it should end.’
Conservative APPHG member Lord Dobbs said: ‘We should be… asking whether the Bishops’ presence is still appropriate.’
Liberal Democrat member of the APPHG Lord Scriven said: ‘I believe that the role of the Bishops has to be part of the reform agenda, in terms of the historical role of the Bishops, which no longer reflects modern Britain. Take a look at the numbers who call themselves Anglican, the number of people who attend church or who would even call themselves religious or Christian in the UK… I ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, what is the Government’s thinking on reform of the Bishops’ Benches in this House?’
While Green peer Baroness Jones said: ‘Why get rid of the hereditary Peers but leave the 26 Bishops in place? … why should they vote on legislation? How does that make sense in a country where we are not even Christian any more and fewer than two out of 100 people regularly attend Church of England services?’
Labour peer Baroness Bryan said: that she through membership of the House of Lords, if known, ‘would probably shock many electors. Most people would want to know… why Bishops of the Church of England are represented in our Parliament.’
The issue of parliamentary prayers was also raised. Conservative peer Viscount Astor said: ‘We cannot have a second Chamber that does not include representatives of other faiths. Prayers should be said not just by the Bishops but by those representing other faiths.’
Humanists UK campaigns for the daily Anglican prayers in both chambers to be replaced by a time for reflection given by a representative of a different faith or belief each day – including humanists. This is the system that operates in the Scottish Parliament.
The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Smith, acknowledged the desire for reform herself, in saying ‘We want a more diverse House, in terms of a whole range of characteristics, including geography but also age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other issues as well.’
The debate followed on from yesterday’s votes on amendments in the House of Commons which saw the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Green Party, and Reform, along with many Conservative and a few Labour MPs, supporting removing the bishops.
With a wide range of MPs and peers from multiple parties supporting their removal from the Lords, as well as the majority of the British public and many Church of England clergy behind this reform, Humanists UK hopes the government takes action on this vital issue.
Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘It is good to see that the vital issue of bishops in the Lords is being raised in both the Lords and the Commons. With a wide range of support from multiple parties in both houses as well as the public it seems the ideal time for reform. We hope that the Government moves to remove this unfair privilege.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk, or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Today in the Commons MPs from multiple parties criticised the automatic right of bishops to sit in the House of Lords. They made their views clear as part of a debate on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, with amendments being proposed to remove the 26 reserved places for Church of England bishops. One amendment was proposed by a large number of Conservative MPs with support from Reform, the SNP, and two Labour backbenchers. Another was proposed by the Lib Dems, with support from the Green Party. However, all amendments were defeated due to Government concerns about broadening the Bill. Humanists UK welcomed the debate, having briefed MPs in advance, and hopes it means that the bishops will be considered next for removal.
Conservative MP Sir Gavin Williamson, proposer of one of the amendments, summed up the problem of bishops in the House of Lords by saying, ‘It is fundamentally unfair that we still have a situation where a bloc of clerics have a right and a say over our legislation—over how my constituents live’ He also pointed out that ‘Only one other sovereign country has clerics in its parliamentary body, which is Iran.’
Meanwhile Liberal Democrat MP Freddie Van Mierlo, who also brought up his ‘zeal for the removal of the Bishops’ mentioned the special privileges that the bishops have in the House of Lords. They have privileged speaking rights over other peers – when a bishop wants to speak, others are expected to give way and they are exempted from the portions of the Code of Conduct of the Lords that forbid payment for providing advice and services, enabling them to advocate on behalf of the Church of England.
SNP spokesperson Pete Wishart MP described the bishops as ‘A historic remnant from medieval times that… is totally absurd.’ As he noted the UK is a ‘multi-faith and no-faith complex democracy, where so few people actually attend their Church.’ Currently over half the population are non-religious while only 12% are Anglican even less regularly attend church.
Conservative MP Dr Andrew Murrison said ‘I do not particularly want to see our legislature populated by people who are there because they are representative of one particular faith community in this country. I am a practising Anglican and I value the views of bishops—of course I do—but it is simply not right to have them being politicians in dog collars… I would much rather that they were in their dioceses engaged in the cure of souls. That is where I, as an Anglican, want to see them.’
Speaking for the Government, Minister without Portfolio Ellie Reeves MP rejected the amendments on the grounds that ‘this is a focussed Bill which delivers on a manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform. The Bill has the simple objective of removing the remaining 92 spaces reserved for hereditary peers from the House of Lords, thereby completing the process started in 1999.’ Ultimately the Government was concerned that the Bill should stick only to what was in its manifesto, which meant removing the hereditary peers but not the bishops.
Given the wide range of support from multiple parties it is clear that pressure is building to remove the unfair and undemocratic right for the 26 reserved places for Church of England bishops.
The public overwhelmingly agrees that bishops should not automatically be granted a right to sit in the House of Lords. A survey conducted by YouGov for the Times found that 62 per cent of British adults believe that no religious leaders should have ‘an automatic right to seats’ in Parliament. This sentiment will only have increased with the shift towards a less religious society.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘It is clear after today that there is an increasingly wide range of support to remove the bishops from the House of Lords. After the hereditary peers are removed from the Lords, the bishops should be next. We hope the Government recognises the need to quickly remove this undemocratic and discriminatory arrangement.’
Notes:
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been published. Introduced by Kim Leadbeater MBE, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, the Bill will allow adults who are terminally ill with six months left to live or fewer the ability to end their own life, subject to safeguards and protections. The Second Reading will be on Friday 29 November. Humanists UK has welcomed the introduction of the Bill.
The individual must make a voluntary, informed, and settled wish, confirmed by two independent doctors and approved by the High Court. The doctors must verify the patient’s terminal diagnosis and mental capacity. The declaration can be revoked at any time. The medicine can only be self-administered.
No doctor will be under any obligation to participate in any part of the process. The Chief Medical Officers in England and Wales and the Secretary of State will be required to monitor and report on the operation of the law.
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament. It differs in that terminally ill people are eligible regardless of how long they have left to live.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘This is a historic Bill which would give many suffering people the choice and dignity they desire and deserve. As they debate its provisions, parliamentarians will have in front of them vital questions about eligibility, process, and safeguards, that it will be the duty of all of society to help them address.
‘Drawing on our own decades of policy and research in this field, and on the best of the international experience of the 31 legal jurisdictions in the world that are ahead of us, we at Humanists UK look forward to supporting all legislators with this once-in-a-generation legislation.
‘The fact of the matter is that assisted dying is already happening in this country. People are travelling to Switzerland, engaging in suicides and mercy killings, and doctors are providing too much morphine. Others are dying through suicide. MPs’ jobs are properly understood not as introducing a practice where there is none but to introduce safeguards where there are none.
‘We recognise that some MPs may be nervous about such a significant piece of legislation coming before them so early in their terms. But we hope that they will realise that, if they support assisted dying in principle but are concerned about the practicalities, they should vote in favour of it at second reading. The subsequent committee and report stages offer ample opportunities to provide detailed scrutiny of the measure, before future votes as the proposals proceed through their parliamentary stages.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
This weekend, humanist groups across the UK will join Remembrance ceremonies, laying wreaths and representing the non-religious at local commemorations nationwide.
Humanist representatives will participate in the national Remembrance ceremonies in London, Cardiff, Belfast, and Edinburgh, as well as in community ceremonies across the country. Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson will again represent the non-religious at the UK’s national ceremony, the National Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, London. Humanists UK is proud to stand with people from all backgrounds in a shared moment of remembrance.
Defence Humanists and the Humanists and Non-religious in Defence (HAND, the internal humanist network in the Ministry of Defence) will have their annual remembrance ceremony on Saturday at the the Royal College of Defence Studies in London. The event is fully booked, and will include a list of distinguished speakers including Defence Humanists patron Francesca Stavrakopoulou, as well as representatives from NATO military humanist chaplaincies, members of Royal Hospital Chelsea, and members of the UK Cadet Forces.
As growing numbers within the UK armed forces identify as having no religion, currently at 37% of personnel, the presence of humanists at Remembrance ceremonies becomes increasingly significant. Their participation ensures that this commemoration truly reflects the diversity of those who serve, fostering a sense of unity and shared remembrance across all beliefs. By honouring the fallen, we reaffirm our collective commitment to peace and a future built on compassion and understanding.
As the number of non-religious personnel in the armed forces grows, so does the need for non-religious pastoral support. Humanists UK is working with the Ministry of Defence to increase provision as the official endorsing body for non-religious pastoral officers in the armed forces.
Defence Humanists pushed for greater recognition of the non-religious at Remembrance through its ‘For All Who Serve’ campaign, which culminated in the historic decision to include humanists in the national Remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph in 2018. Defence Humanists continue to argue for a more inclusive national ceremony; the current ceremony is Anglican-led, with participation from religious groups and humanists.
Roger Hutton, Humanists UK Patron and former Director International Security in the Ministry of Defence, penned this powerful article on what Remembrance means to him:
‘Ritual can help frame our Remembrance, to give it shape, to channel our emotions. That can take a secular or a religious form. For me, as a humanist, my natural preference is the former. I want and need to hear the stories of those involved in or affected by conflict. I want to know, and learn from, the human experience of conflict.’
Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:
‘Remembering all those who serve or have served in the cause of freedom and democracy is of the utmost value, and we’re grateful to once again have the opportunity to come together to do so.’
‘Non-religious people play a vital role within our Armed Forces, and it’s essential that they, too, are honoured in Remembrance. Humanist representation across Remembrance ceremonies provides a meaningful moment for humanists everywhere to reflect in a way that resonates deeply with their own values and beliefs.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Religious Education (RE) is in need of significant reform so that it meets the needs of today’s society and is relevant to young people, says Humanists UK in its submission to Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence.
Reform of the subject so that it is taught in a broad, and balanced manner in all state-funded schools regardless of religious character, a suggested name change to ‘Religions and Worldviews’ with subject inclusive of non-religious worldviews like humanism, and the removal of any faith-based opt-outs to the subject are some of the changes suggested to improve the quality of the subject. Humanists UK also argues that the subject should be brought into the national curriculum to make the subject consistent across all schools.
The review was launched following the 2024 King’s Speech and aims to make sure the curriculum ‘appropriately balances ambition, excellence, relevance, flexibility and inclusivity for all children and young people’. The call for evidence, which closes on 22 November, is the first stage of the review, with an interim report based on submissions expected in early 2025. There has been no review of the curriculum since 2013 and is already falling out of date, particularly in relation to RE. Earlier this year an Ofsted report into RE found that the current RE curriculum often lacked ‘sufficient substance to prepare pupils to live in a complex world’.
Alongside RE reform, Humanists UK also calls on the review panel to make sure Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) is taught in an unbiased and impartial manner, with no allowance for faith-based teaching or any parental right to withdraw children from any aspect of the subject. Mandatory daily Christian worship in schools of no religious character should also be replaced by the introduction of inclusive assemblies for pupil development into the curriculum. A recent poll found that 70% of school leaders opposed collective worship.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘The Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence has been a welcome opportunity for us to show the panel that there is a real need for meaningful reform to RE, RSE and other subjects to make sure they are fit for purpose and relevant to the needs of young people.
‘We also hope the panel will seriously consider the inclusion of inclusive assemblies for pupil development into the curriculum, and replace 80 year old mandatory Christian collective worship laws that leave so many non-Christian and non-religious pupils feeling disengaged. We look forward to working with the review panel as review processes to develop these proposals.’
Humanists UK campaigns for RE to become an inclusive, impartial, objective, fair, balanced, and relevant subject allowing pupils to explore a variety of religions and humanism, sitting alongside other humanities subjects in the curriculum and with the same status as them.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Read more about our work on progressive reforms to the school curriculum.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Northern Ireland Humanists and humanists around the UK have expressed their sadness following the death of former MLA Anna Lo, who was the most high-profile humanist MLA in Northern Ireland.
A humanist and supporter of Northern Ireland Humanists, Anna was a trailblazing member of the Northern Ireland Assembly who broke new ground as the first Chinese parliamentarian in UK history.
She served as Alliance Party MLA for Belfast South from 2007 until 2016, when she was forced to stand down due to a pattern of targeted racial abuse from Ulster unionists. She lived with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator, who worked with her on a number of humanist issues, including the successful campaign to decriminalise abortion, paid tribute to Anna by saying:
‘Anna was an amazing woman who we worked closely with over the years. She exemplified humanist values. She was a critical thinker, her politics was led by evidence and data, and she was filled with empathy and warmth for her fellow human beings.
‘We are going to miss Anna dearly. We already do. She was a serious force for good in our society who overcame significant challenges in her personal life, but remained focused on her goal of bettering people’s lives. She is someone I look up to and a role model for Northern Ireland’s politicians now and in the years to come.’
Alliance Party leader Naomi Long MLA paid tribute by saying:
‘Anna was not a religious person. As a humanist, she believed in the goodness of people and their ability to transcend division. She exemplified that, every day of her life. Good things do, indeed, come in small packages, and Anna Lo was the best of us. She was my friend: warm, witty, funny, fierce, courageous and kind. I will miss her enormously, but she will live on in her legacy and in the hearts of all those whom she touched with her kindness.’
Anna helped to launch Northern Ireland Humanists at its official launch event in 2016, and attended many of the charity’s brunch socials, rallies, events, and activities alongside the NI Interfaith Forum. She was courageous in identifying publicly as non-religious even in Northern Ireland’s religiously charged political arena. For example, in 2015, she was the only MLA out of seven non-religious MLAs identified by the BBC who was willing to be publicly identified as non-religious and interviewed on that basis.
She was someone who believed in the future of Northern Ireland as a cosmopolitan, egalitarian society where public policy is based on evidence, human rights, and democratic consensus, and where religion does not divide people into political and social tribes.
In her own words, Anna said:
‘I think in Northern Ireland so many of our politicians use their faith as almost an attraction for voters… What I want to see is policy-making based on evidence – scientific evidence, medical evidence, social science evidence – and not the Bible.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator at boyd@humanists.uk or phone 07918 975795.
Northern Ireland Humanists is part of Humanists UK, working with the Humanist Association of Ireland. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Today sees the release of Humanists UK’s new book What I Believe, a collection of over 30 interviews with well-known humanists including Sandi Toksvig, Stephen Fry, Alice Roberts, Tim Minchin, Jim Al-Khalili, Dan Snow, Natalie Haynes, among many others. Edited by Humanists UK’s Chief Executive Andrew Copson, the book offers readers an intimate insight into the values and beliefs that inspire some of today’s most prominent voices. It follows Andrew Copson’s The Little Book of Humanism, co-written with Alice Roberts, which quickly became a Sunday Times bestseller in 2020.
Covering enormous ground, the interviews contained within What I Believe powerfully link personal stories to themes that touch on what it means to be human – spanning art, politics, history, campaigning and activism, the environment, human nature, growing up, and growing old.
Inspired by the essays of two humanist greats – the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the novelist E M Forster – What I Believe opens a window to different humanist perspectives of today. All ideas, values, and beliefs are open to question and in this book readers have the opportunity to reflect on the human experience and consider what they, too, believe.
Jim Al-Khalili, whose interview features in the book said:
‘My humanist belief helps me make sense of the universe and my place within it, which in turn gives my life hope and meaning. To be able to share my thoughts alongside so many leading contemporary thinkers and wonderful human beings in this new book is a tremendous honour.’
Helen Czerski, who is also included in What I Believe, said:
‘It’s an honour to be included in this lovely collection of humanist ideas and perspectives. One of the wonderful things about humanism is the adventure of exploring the rich variety of perspectives that we humans can create for ourselves, originating in a rational view of the world seen through the huge diversity of human experience. This book is a wonderful guide to this bounty, full of very human stories and illuminating insights.’
Janet Ellis, who was interviewed for What I Believe said:
‘A manifesto for progressive thinking. Vastly provocative, erudite and entertaining. I contributed and I’m proud!’
Editor Andrew Copson commented:
‘This book presents a remarkable range of perspectives and captures the diversity and depth of contemporary humanist thinking. At a time when values and ideals seem fragmented, readers will hopefully find within these pages not just inspiration but also a deeper sense of connection to the shared human experience. It’s an opportunity to reflect on what drives and inspires us and make sense of what we believe.’
The book is available to order from Waterstones, Hive, Blackwell’s, Amazon, and all good bookshops, at £16.99 RRP. It is published by Piatkus Books, an imprint of Little, Brown. All royalties from the book go towards supporting the work of Humanists UK.
Featured in the book are are Jim Al-Khalili, Joan Bakewell, Sarah Bakewell, Sian Berry, Susan Blackmore, Helen Czerski, Alf Dubs, Janet Ellis, Stephen Fry, Rebecca Goldstein, A C Grayling, Natalie Haynes, Leo Igwe, Mike Little, Ian McEwan, Eddie Marsan, S I Martin, Tim Minchin, Diane Munday, Christina Patterson, Hannah Peel, Kate Pickett, Steven Pinker, Nichola Raihani, Alice Roberts, Paul Sinha, Dan Snow, Sandi Toksvig, Frank Turner, Nigel Warburton, and Richard Wiseman.
Humanists UK is celebrating the launch of the book at a special event on 11 December. Guests will hear directly from Humanists UK patrons Alice Roberts and Natalie Haynes about what drives them, what inspires them, and what gives their lives meaning.
The collection originates in conversations from Humanists UK’s popular podcast of the same name, What I Believe, which since 2020 has been listened to by people in over 100 countries, and has ranked in the top 1% of podcasts worldwide.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Communications and Development Executive sophie@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Lya [pictured: third from right] is one of our dedicated Faith to Faithless helpline volunteers
Faith to Faithless volunteer Lya was nominated for the Helpline Partnership’s Volunteer of the Year award, and won! The award was presented to Lya at the annual Helpline Awards, held on 7 November in Birmingham, and commends Lya for her contribution to the helpline sector. Faith to Faithless is a programme at Humanists UK dedicated to providing specialist support to people leaving high control religion. Humanists UK offers its warm congratulations.
The Helplines Partnership is the national membership body for organisations that provide information, support, or advice via phone, email, text, or online. Each year it holds the Helpline Awards to celebrate unsung heroes and recognise the exceptional work of the helpline sector. By giving Lya (who prefers only her first name is used for her safety) this award, the Helpline Partnership has recognised the remarkable contributions she has made in providing outstanding support, guidance, and compassion to those in need.
The Faith to Faithless helpline, a dedicated helpline for those leaving high-control religions, was launchedearlier this year. Currently operating three days a week, it is operated by a team of highly trained volunteers who understand the nuanced challenges faced by groups such as ex-Muslims, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, ex-Evangelicals, and ex-Mormons. They are equipped to listen to and understand the unique issues apostates face, providing a listening ear and signposting to other services where needed.
Humanists UK Director of Humanist Care Clare Elcombe Webber said:
‘We are so proud of Lya and absolutely delighted that her hard work, dedication and expertise are recognised not only by Faith to Faithless service users, but also by the Helplines Partnership. We are also proud of all the other volunteers who have contributed so much to the Faith to Faithless helpline over its first year and made it such a resounding success.
‘The need for the Faith to Faithless helpline cannot be underestimated. Our team of volunteers are there for people leaving high-control religious communities who may be facing social isolation, profound loneliness and economic hardship, at great cost to their mental wellbeing.
‘While we celebrate Lya’s contributions, we have to stay focused on the ongoing challenge of keeping this crucial service resourced so that we can continue to be here for some of the most vulnerable people in the country.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK’s Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Faith to Faithless is a programme at Humanists UK dedicated to providing specialist support to people leaving high control religion. Beyond the helpline and its year-round provision of peer support from trained volunteers, the service offers awareness training to public services, including NHS divisions and police forces.
Faith to Faithless operates under a stringent safeguarding policy, prioritising the safety and wellbeing of all those reaching out for support.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK returned to Manchester for the 2024 Holyoake Lecture, given by distinguished psephologist and political scientist Professor John Curtice, the recipient of the Humanists UK Holyoake Lecture Medal.
Professor Curtice’s lecture focused on the phenomenon of ‘culture wars’ in the UK, analysing how shifts in public attitudes and values are influencing politics and society. Issues like national pride, women’s and minority rights, and immigration are challenging long-standing British identities and contributing to a new, increasingly fragmented political landscape.
Professor Curtice argued that the UK is becoming increasingly divided along a libertarian-authoritarian axis – a departure from the previously more salient ‘left-right’ divide. This new fault line runs across existing political camps, and separates those who prioritise personal freedom, social diversity, and global integration from those who favour social order, national sovereignty, and traditional authority. This shift, he suggested, was being driven by a confluence of factors, including rising educational attainment, secularisation, as well as the growing influence of younger, more progressive generations. As liberalism progresses, its fruits become more politically contested.
As a result, demographic factors such as age have shifted from being a ‘secondary’ predictor of political opinion to a major political faultline in and of itself. Professor Curtice highlighted the softening of national pride, with younger generations less likely to celebrate Britain’s imperial past. He also noted the seemingly paradoxical shift in attitudes towards immigration, with public acceptance and appreciation of immigrants’ economic and cultural contributions increasing, rather than falling, immediately following the Brexit vote – a decision often associated with anti-immigration sentiment. On this and other issues, the public was undergoing a polarisation – a flight to the extremes – the like of which we more commonly associate with the United States and its entrenched political divides.
His analysis was punctuated with compelling data, demonstrating how these cultural shifts are reshaping the political landscape. He showed how ‘culture war’ issues are increasingly influencing voting patterns. ‘The culture wars are not just about policy disagreements,’ he explained. ‘They’re a reflection of who we are and who we want to be as a society.’
Following a lively and wide-ranging Q&A, Andrew Copson awarded Professor John Curtice the prestigious Holyoake Lecture Medal:
‘It’s in knowing ourselves and what divides us that we can perhaps begin to glean those things that might unite us, and there is perhaps no person who has done more to shed a light on the British public than John Curtice. I’m delighted, therefore, to present John Curtice with the Holyoake Lecture Medal 2024′
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
The Holyoake Lecture explores an aspect of politics or contemporary social or political issue, especially as it relates to secularist and humanist issues, including liberalism, democracy, social justice, feminism, anti-racism, LGBT rights, or equality. The Holyoake medallist has made a significant contribution in one of these fields. The lecture and medal are named for the nineteenth century humanist George Jacob Holyoake, who among many other achievements coined the word ‘secularism’ and was a lifelong progressive political activist.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 130,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The UK Government has confirmed that VAT will be applied to private faith schools across the UK as part of its plans to remove VAT exemption for private schools. Humanists UK, who wrote to the Chancellor of Exchequer urging her not to apply any faith-based carve-outs to the VAT policy, has welcomed this announcement. However, it is concerned about private faith schools seeking to get around the policy by ostensibly – but not really – making their fees voluntary.
Some private faith schools, including three private Christian schools, have said they will take legal action against the UK Government. These schools claim the policy would unlawfully discriminate against parents because it would force these schools to close and deprive them of providing a faith-based education for their children. At the time Humanists UK disputed this claim, arguing that even if private faith schools did close, state-funded faith schools would continue to exist. This view has been supported by the UK Government in its response to its technical consultation with parents and private school providers:
‘[I]t is the government’s position that state education is suitable for children of all faiths. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools are required to follow the Equality Act. These include fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and none. As a result of these considerations, faith schools will remain in scope of this policy (2.23).’
Humanists UK campaigns for an inclusive education and schools system that allows no privilege or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, and gives children and young people of all different backgrounds and beliefs an environment that lets them learn with and from each other. This includes campaigning for an end to religious discrimination in school admissions and employment, and for a progressive reform of the curriculum including religious education.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘We welcome the UK Government’s announcement that there will be no faith-based carve-outs to its private school VAT policy and that private faith schools will be included.
‘We also welcome its statement that no child is being deprived of state-funded education as a result of this policy, and that children have the same fundamental rights concerning education regardless of the type of school they attend.’
A problem ahead: private faith schools pretending they charge no fees but instead have ‘voluntary’ donations
The UK Government’s response also states that rather than being disproportionately impacted by the VAT plans as some private faith school providers have argued, some small private faith schools are ‘likely to be less than proportionately impacted’ by the plans as they receive donations from the community and religious organisations (2.19).
Humanists UK is aware that some private faith school providers including Chinuch UK, the body representing Charedi schools, are reviewing whether schools which operate on a voluntary donations basis rather than fees will fall outside of the new VAT rules. But there is concern that in fact parents at such schools are coerced into making such ‘donations’, and so they are in fact mandatory. If this is the case, private faith schools could follow this model. Humanists UK will be writing again to the UK Government to urge HMRC to implement the strongest possible regulations to make sure all donations are made on a voluntary basis and that no family is coerced into making them.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Consent education is a vital component of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), and should be taught in an unbiased and evidence-led manner to make sure young people get the knowledge they need about boundaries, healthy relationships, and preventing sexual harassment and relationship abuse. That is the view of Northern Ireland Humanists, given in its response to the Assembly’s Education Committee’s inquiry on RSE.
The Education Committee launched its inquiry to understand how RSE is taught in other parts of the UK, Ireland, and internationally; understand the teaching provision of RSE across Northern Ireland; and understand if changes need to be made to RSE in Northern Ireland and what these should look like.
Alongside calls for unbiased consent education, Northern Ireland Humanists’ also called for any parental right to withdraw their children from RSE to be removed, and for the Department of Education (DE) to scrap the provision that allows schools to deliver RSE in alignment with the ethos of the school.
Although lessons on abortion, contraception, and consent are compulsory in Northern Ireland, the DE issued guidance to schools and governors that allows for teachers to discuss ‘moral, ethical and spiritual issues’ associated with the RSE minimum content. Northern Ireland Humanists argues that this should be removed from the guidance to make sure the RSE is delivered in an evidence-led manner.
Earlier this year Northern Ireland Humanists welcomed the passing of a motion mandating compulsory ‘standardised, inclusive, high-quality, evidence-based and age-appropriate’ RSE In the Northern Ireland Assembly.
‘The Education Committee’s inquiry into RSE is a welcome opportunity to make the case for good quality, unbiased, and evidence-led teaching. We urge the Assembly and Executive to make further reforms to make sure the subject is free from religious bias.
‘RSE that is inclusive, evidence-based, and age-appropriate equips young people with the knowledge they need to navigate relationships in a healthy and respectful way, while also fostering a society that values respect and informed consent. We will continue to work closely with educators, parents, and policymakers to make the case for an unbiased and evidence-led RSE curriculum.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator at boyd@humanists.uk or phone 07918 975795.
Northern Ireland Humanists is part of Humanists UK, working with the Humanist Association of Ireland. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
In a major victory for a longstanding Humanists UK campaign, safe access zones around all hospitals and clinics providing abortions in England and Wales are implemented from today.
The move means people accessing or providing abortions can do so free from harassment and intimidation. Humanists UK has campaigned on this issue as part of the ‘Back Off!’ campaign – which it helped to launch in 2015 – and welcomed the implementation as a crucial step towards protecting abortion care access.
Safe access zones will make it an offence to influence, obstruct, or harass anyone within a 150-metre radius around any premise providing abortion services, and anyone found guilty of breaking the law will face an unlimited fine. This covers acts such as handing out leaflets, protesting against abortion rights, shouting at individuals, or physically restricting someone’s access to a clinic or hospital.
Instances will be dealt with on a case-by-base basis, with police and prosecutors evaluating the intent and recklessness of the person involved. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has published clear guidance to prosecutors that there is no defence on religious or ethical grounds to people seeking to influence, obstruct, or harass others within safe access zones. As such, Humanists UK expects silent prayer to be covered by the law as a practice that people accessing a clinic often describe as intimidating, even if the person praying is not speaking.
What are safe access zones?
Recent years have seen a sharp increase in the size and extent of religious protesters picketing abortion clinics in the UK. Using tactics imported from the United States, these protesters can display graphic images, hurl insults, and call women and clinic staff ‘murderers’ as they approach the building. Women who have attempted to access abortion services have described this as a ‘gauntlet of abuse’.
Safe access zones are an innovation – piloted successfully in parts of the United States, Canada, and Australia – to uphold women’s fundamental right to access healthcare. They require the space around abortion clinics to be free to access for all patients. This means protesters have to move their signs and soapboxes down the street, or direct their attention to policymakers, rather than vulnerable women and girls. Those accessing abortion services include women who are victims of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault.
The route to safe access zones in England and Wales
Legislation to introduce national safe access zones was passed in the UK Parliament in March 2023, following an amendment tabled by Stella Creasy MP, and supported by Humanists UK through briefing to the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG).
But the UK Home Office under Home Secretary Suella Braverman chose instead to consult on the matter, despite a clear mandate from Parliament supporting the establishment of such zones. Draft guidance released in January 2024 by then Home Secretary James Cleverly included expansive religious loopholes that would have rendered the legislation incapable of protecting women from abuse and harassment. Parliament was dissolved for the General Election before any changes could be implemented.
Richy Thompson, Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy, commented:
‘We welcome the new Government’s swift action on implementing safe access zones, as well as the robust guidelines issued today. We know from extensive work in this area that people accessing a clinic can feel intimidated by the presence of someone praying in the area, even if they are not speaking. The law spells out clearly that any attempt to influence or obstruct abortions will fall foul of the law, and we would expect silent prayer to fall within this.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK is deeply saddened by the death of Labour peer Lord Lyndon Harrison, Humanists UK patron and stalwart member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) until his retirement from the House of Lords.
Lord Harrison was one of the most active humanists in Parliament in the 2000s and 2010s, making huge contributions to humanist marriages, the question of religion in Parliament, and recognition of humanism in society.
Born in 1947, Lord Harrison studied at the University of Warwick, University of Sussex, and University of Keele, where he earned multiple degrees in the arts and humanities. His career in public service began in earnest when he became a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in 1989. A decade later, in 1999, he was made a Labour life peer, taking his seat in the House of Lords.
A proud humanist and an active member of the APPHG from his position in the House of Lords, Lord Harrison sought throughout his career to make sure that the voices of the non-religious were heard, valued, and respected in public life. In 2007, he initiated a debate in the House of Lords on ‘the position in British society of those who profess no religion’, challenging the contemporary narrative that non-religious people, including humanists, were ‘illiberal’ or ‘aggressive.’ He called for greater recognition of the non-religious in the formation of public policy and for equality in public life.
‘My debate today seeks to… tabulate those areas of public life where we feel unacknowledged, unprized, and under-represented. I hope, too, to ponder on what government and the wider community might do to reflect better this modern and more secular Britain that is developing, in particular in its public policies and institutions.’
He was praised by Lord Judd in this same debate for his ‘warm engagement with the realities of society’ and knowing ‘what really makes society, at the grassroots, tick.’ ‘It is always good’, he added, ‘that he challenges us [the Lords] with those perceptions.’
In 2013 he organised a second such debate, this time more specifically to celebrate the contribution of humanists to British society and highlight the work of Humanists UK:
‘My Lords, today we speak up on behalf of the silent majority, for those of us who do not attend any place of worship, whether church, mosque or synagogue. It is a silent majority, whose full contribution to British society has perhaps been unsung for too long. In contrast, we find that religious voices are ever more present, and sometimes shrill, in the public square. However, because atheism is a philosophical viewpoint, arrived at individually and personally, we are not given to marching in the street chanting, “What do we want? Atheism! When do we want it? Now!”. As a humanist who senses that religion has neither rhyme nor reason, I believe that we should ensure that our needs and concerns are met and satisfied in that public square, as they are in the private armchair. For too long we have been silent, contemplative hermits in terms of our own cause.’
‘I believe that the time has come for a secular state within an open society – an idea which has the support of many humanists and many among the Anglican Communion… [Humanists UK’s] case for secularism argues that we can no longer base society on a shared religion, but rather on shared values. A secular state, which is most avowedly not an atheist state, seeks to protect the rights of all citizens to hold their own beliefs, religious or otherwise. A secular state is assuredly an open and an even-handed state in which people’s participation in public institutions does not depend on their religious or non-religious convictions.’
In 2012 he introduced the first-ever private members’ bill to bring about legal recognition of humanist marriages. This kickstarted all subsequent parliamentary debate on the issue. In 2013, when the Same-Sex Marriage Act was going through Parliament, he was the first in the Lords to put down amendments to add humanist marriage recognition to that Bill. His and others’ efforts were rewarded when the Government subsequently introduced its own amendment to bring about recognition – although one it has sadly subsequently resisted enacting.
He was actively involved in debates around religion, humanism, and education. For example, he spoke out in support of humanism in RE, against 100% selective religious schools, and on school admissions rules. He also organised an oral question on whether the BBC was including humanists enough in its coverage. Outside of parliamentary life, Lord Harrison remained a keen advocate for the inclusion of the non-religious in public life, debating prominent figures like conservative commentator Peter Hitchens on BBC Radio 4’s Todayprogramme on whether religious people have a privileged position in society.
Commenting on Lord Harrison’s death, Andrew Copson said:
‘I worked with Lyndon for twenty years and he was always a warm and incisive colleague. He leaves behind a huge legacy of principled advocacy for humanism and the fair representation of non-religious voices in the UK. At Humanists UK we will all miss him very much and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his family and friends and the many who loved him.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK has launched a nationwide advertising campaign for new book What I Believe. Posters showcasing the book, which is a collection of diverse essays from famous humanists, are currently on display in London Underground stations and railway stations across the UK ahead of its publication on 7 November.
Humanism seen by millions
Designed to reach millions of commuters daily, the campaign invites readers to explore humanist values – the mainstream values of the non-religious in contemporary Britain – and reflect on their own beliefs and convictions in the process.
The book follows in the footsteps of the Sunday Times bestseller The Little Book of Humanism, which was a barnstorming success in online retailers and high street bookstores, charting high on Amazon, Waterstones, and Hive book charts. Like its predecessor, What I Believe offers fresh and timely perspectives on how to live a fulfilling and ethical life.
Breadth of humanist thought
The book is a series of interview essays with high-profile non-religious people in the public eye, around the theme of ‘What I Believe’, which is to say, delving into the guiding values, unique opinions, and personal convictions they live by. It is available for pre-order now.
Well-known humanists interviewed for the book include Stephen Fry, Sandi Toksvig, Tim Minchin, and Alice Roberts. The book was edited by Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson.
Stephen Fry
Sandi Toksvig
Tim Minchin
Alice Roberts
The essays, collected together in this new edited form, powerfully showcase the vast diversity, breadth, and room for disagreement in humanist thought, even between people united by shared values, ideals, and principles.
Covering enormous ground, these interviews powerfully link personal stories to themes that touch on what it means to be human – spanning art, politics, history, campaigning and activism, the environment, love, friendship, growing up, and growing old.
The humanist view of life is progressive and dynamic. All ideas, values, and beliefs are open to question. In this book, readers will find inspiration to shape their own personal worldviews.
The book is available to pre-order from Waterstones, Hive, Amazon, and all good bookshops, at £16.99 RRP. It is published by Piatkus Books, an imprint of Little, Brown. All author royalties will go towards supporting the work of Humanists UK.
Commenting, editor of What I Believe Andrew Copson said:
‘It’s great to see What I Believe adverts in the corridors and platforms of London Underground stations and railway stations up and down the country ahead of its release on 7 November.
‘By speaking to well-known humanists like Sandi Toksvig, Stephen Fry, and Alice Roberts, I hope readers will find within these pages not just inspiration but also a deeper sense of connection to the shared human experience, and a chance to reflect on their own beliefs and values. I look forward to its release!’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
All ideas, values, and beliefs are open to question and in this book you will find inspiration to shape your own worldview. What I Believe features interviews with Jim Al-Khalili, Joan Bakewell, Sarah Bakewell, Sian Berry, Susan Blackmore, Helen Czerski, Alf Dubs, Janet Ellis, Stephen Fry, Rebecca Goldstein, A C Grayling, Natalie Haynes, Leo Igwe, Mike Little, Ian McEwan, Eddie Marsan, S I Martin, Tim Minchin, Diane Munday, Christina Patterson, Hannah Peel, Kate Pickett, Steven Pinker, Nichola Raihani, Alice Roberts, Paul Sinha, Dan Snow, Sandi Toksvig, Frank Turner, Nigel Warburton and Richard Wiseman.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Advertising Standards Authority confirmed it had received a complaint that the poster ‘mocks the Christian faith’
A poster advertising comedian Fern Brady’s tour is ‘sacrilegious’, according to a complaint received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Given ASA rules, this complaint could lead to the comedy poster being banned.
Humanists UK is concerned that the ASA will ban the poster on grounds of causing religious offence, as it has with similar adverts in the past. It says that doing so amounts to a de facto anti-blasphemy law, which is an unreasonable restriction on free expression.
Fern Brady’s poster shows her standing in front of a stained glass window with the title for her tour ‘I gave you milk to drink’, a reference to a biblical verse. Brady is depicted wearing ‘biblical era clothing’ and squirting breast milk towards the mouth of a man kneeling in ecclesiastical clothing.
The ASA is the self-regulator of almost all advertising space in the UK. It maintains a Code on Advertising Practice, and routinely bans adverts that don’t comply with the Code. The Code says ‘Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of: …religion or belief’. Humanists UK believes that the subjective tests of ‘offence’ should not appear in the advertising codes of practice and has long spoken out against examples of censorship that amount to the reintroduction of the blasphemy law, for advertising, by the back door.
Last year, the ASA found that a poster promoting Demi Lovato’s album was ‘likely to cause offence to Christians’. The poster had been displayed at only six locations across London in the summer of 2022 before being taken down four days later. It depicted the clearly recognisable singer ‘in a bondage-style outfit whilst lying on a large, cushioned crucifix’, along with the name of the album, ‘HOLY FVCK’. Complaints were made to the ASA about the poster on two grounds – that the advertisement would cause ‘serious or widespread offence’ and that it was ‘irresponsibly placed where children could see it.’ Both grounds were upheld by the ASA. While the poster could have reasonably been banned solely for containing language that was easily recognisable as alluding to a swear word, or for its inappropriateness for children, Humanists UK criticised the ASA also banning the image for being religiously offensive.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson commented:
‘Blasphemy laws were repealed in England and Wales in 2008, and Scotland in 2024. Yet to censor adverts solely on the grounds that they may offend the religious sensibilities of some enforces a de facto ban on blasphemy.
‘We urge the ASA to make the right decision, to protect Fern Brady’s right to freedom of expression, and to do away with back door anti-blasphemy laws.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Some of the most courageous and determined campaigners we have ever met and worked with at Humanists UK have been incurably suffering people and their families, with conditions from multiple sclerosis, to Huntington’s, to locked-in syndrome, who are not terminally ill but are nonetheless fighting for the right to assistance to die with dignity at a time of their choosing.
It is our longstanding policy of many decades that they should have that right and we’ve been proud to work with so many of them for many years, including in the last few weeks as they have attempted to secure a Bill that would offer them the dignity they deserve.
However, last week the Assisted Dying Bill currently before the Commons had its first reading. Its title was announced as the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’. That means the Bill is now set in stone as one in which eligibility for assisted dying will be restricted to the terminally ill. No further debate on the merits of such an approach can change that.
This is still a historic Bill which would give thousands of suffering people the choice and dignity they desire and deserve and we are committed to working for its success.
Parliamentarians will have in front of them vital questions about eligibility, process, and safeguards, that it will be the duty of all of society to help them address. Drawing on our own decades of policy and research in this field, and on the best of the international experience of the 31 legal jurisdictions in the world that are ahead of us, we at Humanists UK look forward to supporting Kim Leadbeater MP, the proposer of the Bill, and all legislators with this once-in-a-generation legislation.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
MPs have rallied to support amendments to a government bill to remove the automatic right for 26 Church of England bishops to sit in the House of Lords. The amendments follow cross-party MPs calling for reform during the second reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Humanists UK has welcomed the amendments and urges MPs from across the chamber to back this progressive reform.
The amendments to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill would see an end to the 26 reserved places for Church of England bishops in the House of Lords. If selected, they will be voted on during the Committee Stage of the Bill, the date for which has not yet been announced.
The Labour Party under Sir Keir Starmer MP previously committed to transitioning the House of Lords to a ‘fully elected’ chamber, which would mean no reserved seats for bishops. However, it has not yet embarked towards removing the bishops.
If successful, the amendments would follow the recommendations of a 2020 report from the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group of MPs and peers in Parliament to remove this historic anomaly of automatic places for bishops in the House of Lords. The report highlighted that bishops get unique easy access to Government officials, that if a bishop stands up to speak then the convention is that everyone else has to stop and sit down, and that the bishops’ votes on new laws have been decisive in instances that have benefited the Church.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson commented:
‘We welcome these amendments which aim to deliver a more fair and equal society by removing the automatic right for Church of England bishops to sit in the House of Lords. There is no reason for leaders of one particular branch, of one particular religion, and one particular geography, within modern society to to enjoy such favour over all others, especially when considering that most people are not Anglican.
‘We ask MPs to back these sensible amendments to get on with reform without delay, and ask our members and supporters to call on their MPs to do the same.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists weddings are not legally recognised in England and Wales, unlike Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, and Ireland
Peers from the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat parties, from the Crossbenches, and even a bishop spoke in favour of the immediate legal recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales in the House of Lords today.
During oral questions, the cross-party peers pressed the Government on its reluctance to set out a timescale on giving humanist couples to marry in line with their beliefs. Humanists UK leads the campaign for the legal recognition of humanist marriages and welcomed the calls made by peers. But it expressed its disappointment that the Government did not commit to immediate reform, despite supporting this measure for over ten years while in opposition.
Labour peer Baroness Thornton, a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG), tabled the question. She asked whether the Government plans to give legal recognition to humanist weddings and said:
‘Not only did this House put humanist marriage in the Equal Marriage Act of 2013 but, in 2020, the High Court ruled that the failure to provide humanist marriages in England and Wales means that “the present law gives rise to discrimination”, and that the Government “could not sit on its hands” and do nothing. Given that the Government know they must act here, given that this is Labour policy, given that it will cost nothing and given that the Church of England has given it its blessing, what is the problem and why can we not get on with it?’
In response, the Government said it needed more time to set out a position and consider the measure in as wide a context as possible because of inconsistencies within the current marriage law. But as highlighted by peers today, legal recognition of humanist marriages does not have to wait for wholesale reform and can happen now through an Order-making power under the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013.
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Burt, Vice-Chair of the APPHG said:
‘My Lords, “the Liberal Democrats clearly support this change; the Labour Party supports this change; the Government in Wales support this change; the Government in Scotland support this change; and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, it is ultimately going to be a political decision, so why are the Government waiting for the Law Commission’s report?” These are not my words but the words of the Minister himself… The Law Commission has now reported, as he knows. Will he answer now his own question? When will this happen?’
Wholesale marriage reform as proposed by the Law Commission review in 2022 also proves controversial, as pointed out by the Bishop of Sheffield, who stated his Church’s support for humanist marriages but opposition to the wider reforms:
‘On these [i.e. the bishops’] Benches we would welcome humanist wedding ceremonies being given legal status, but the recommendations of the Law Commission go beyond that and would create a free market celebrant-based approach to the wedding industry… Such a move could undermine the solemn nature of marriage, which is never a trivial transaction. Given this unlikely alliance between the Lords Spiritual and Humanists UK, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not enact the recommendations of the Law Commission without considering carefully the impact of a further commercialisation of weddings?’
Conservative peer and APPHG Member Lord Dobbs said:
‘It is Labour policy; it is law in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Jersey; and we have been looking at it for ever. Why the delay? Why do the Government have to look at this yet again, when in opposition they were very clear about it? When they have looked at it, what is the timescale? When will the Minister bring the Government’s view back to this House, so that we can deal with something positive?’
Crossbench peers Lord Desai and Lord Meston also spoke in support.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson commented:
‘Today’s debate had peers from across the political spectrum speak in favour of humanist marriages, and this demonstrates the strength of feeling within Parliament that the law must change without further delay. We hope that the Government will think again, and make good on its promise in opposition to make use of the Order-making power now.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanist weddings are non-religious wedding ceremonies that are fully customised to match the deepest-held values and beliefs of the couple getting married. They are conducted by a humanist celebrant, someone guaranteed to share their beliefs. In consultation with the couple the celebrant produces a completely bespoke script. The ceremony also occurs in whatever location is most meaningful for the couple. Humanists UK has more than 300 trained and accredited wedding celebrants.
Humanist marriages gained legal recognition in Scotland in 2005 and in 2019 there were more humanist than Christian marriages for the first time (23% of the total). In the Republic of Ireland, humanist marriages gained legal recognition in 2012. In 2019 around 9% of legally recognised marriages were humanist. That places the Humanist Association of Ireland only behind the Catholic Church and civil marriages. They gained legal recognition in Northern Ireland in 2018, following a Court of Appeal ruling that concluded that a failure to do so would be a breach of human rights. Jersey also gave legal recognition to humanist marriages in 2019 and in 2021 Guernsey followed suit.
Legal recognition in England and Wales has been under constant Government review since 2013. The Marriage Act gave the Government the power to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages without needing a new Act. But in the years since, the Government has not done this. Instead the matter has been reviewed three times, most recently by the Law Commission, who published their report in July 2022. The previousGovernment did not issue its response before the General Election was called.
In 2020, six humanist couples took a legal case to the High Court. They argued that they were discriminated against by the fact that religious marriages are legally recognised but humanist marriages are not. The judge in the case agreed, ruling that ‘the present law gives rise to… discrimination’. She also ruled that, in light of that, the Secretary of State for Justice ‘cannot… simply sit on his hands’ and do nothing.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
MPs in the House of Commons yesterday called for a government Bill to remove the historic anomaly of 26 bishops voting in the House of Lords. The calls came in a debate on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Humanists UK, which has campaigned against the presence of religious clerics voting on our laws, and which works for separation of church and state, has naturally welcomed the proposals.
In the debate Andrew Murrison MP (Conservative) asked the Government:
‘Does the Minister recognise that a recent survey of Church of England clergy showed the need to reform the participation of Church of England bishops in our legislature? Will he reflect on that, and on the fact that it looks like we are in danger of having bishops who, instead of focusing their efforts on the cure of souls, are more like mitred politicians? That cannot be good for any of us.’
Sir Gavin Williamson MP (Conservative) said he hopes to try to amend the bill:
‘There is a big opportunity here as well as unfairness and injustice. So many people of so many faiths, and so many people of no faith at all, see the fact there are 26 bishops here… And that this is not reflective of a United Kingdom and not reflective of what this country looks like today. So I will (if the Government is not willing to table an amendment) table an amendment to remove the 26 bishops from the House… to make the upper house a fairer and more reflective chamber.’
Pete Wishart MP (SNP) added:
‘While we can laugh at the hereditaries, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and other Conservative Members are quite right to point to the ridiculousness of having 26 places reserved for Church of England bishops. We are the only legislature in the world that has places reserved for clerics other than the Islamic Republic of Iran. We can take comfort from the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not going to embark on some sort of religious jihad, but what strange company to keep. If there was an intra-parliamentary union of serving clerics, it would be exclusively comprise Church of England bishops and ayatollahs.’
Ashley Fox MP (Conservative) continued:
‘We are scrutinising the Government’s proposal. That is the job of the Opposition. The Minister said in his opening speech that hereditary peers are indefensible, and I agree, but so is granting 26 bishops the right to vote in our legislature.’
All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group member Ellie Chowns MP (Green) stated:
‘[This Bill] does not tackle several of the other inequalities and inconsistencies in the composition of the House of Lords. Members across this House have highlighted some of those today, such as the presence of the bishops and the appointment of life peers, so while I welcome the Bill, there is huge room for improvement… On the principle of unelected people not making laws, why do we still have bishops? …I challenge the Paymaster General… to take forward the principles of fairness and equality, and to get rid of not just the unfair and unequal hereditary principle, but the unfair and unequal principle of representing certain religions and not others, or of representing any religion.’
Conservative MPs Edward Leigh, Simon Hoare, Richard Holden, Ben Spencer, and James Wild also challenged the place of the bishops. Nick Thomas-Symonds for the Government simply replied by saying ‘The Church has recognised the need for reform, particularly in terms of size, and today’s debate is further evidence of why it is sensible to reform in stages.’
Given the strong cross- party support shown in yesterday’s debate, it is now possible that an amendment to the Hereditary Peers Bill will be put forward which would seek to remove the privilege granted to the 26 bishops.
Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented:
‘This reform is centuries overdue. The presence of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament isn’t just a quaint relic from a more religious age, but a real and lasting example of discrimination in favour of one denomination of one religion, in a society where most people today have no religion. The Church of England has consistently used its position in the Lords as a party bloc to vote and rail against LGBT rights, abortion rights, or indeed applying equality and anti-discrimination laws to religious schools.
‘If for whatever reason this amendment doesn’t go ahead, the Government should acknowledge the strength of feeling in both houses for pressing ahead with its plans to overhaul the upper house.’
In 2020, a report from the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group of MPs and peers in Parliament noted that bishops get unique easy access to Government officials, that if a bishop stands up to speak then the convention is that everyone else has to stop and sit down, and that the bishops’ votes on new laws have been decisive in instances that have benefited the Church.
The Labour Party under Sir Keir Starmer MP previously committed to transitioning the House of Lords to a ‘fully elected’ chamber, which would mean no reserved seats for bishops. However, it has not yet embarked towards removing the bishops.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Pictured: Andrew Copson, Humanists UK and My Death, My Decision Assisted Dying Rally, Westminster, London, April 2024
Kim Leadbeater MBE, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, has introduced her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to the House of Commons, which means it has had its First Reading. The Bill will ‘allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes’. The Second Reading will be on Friday 29 November. Humanists UK has welcomed the introduction of the Bill.
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament. A members’ debate and vote in the Senedd (the Welsh Parliament) will also be held on Wednesday 23 October on assisted dying for the terminally ill and incurably suffering.
Commenting on the first reading Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘This really is a historic moment. There have been many assisted dying bills brought to Parliament before over the years. But now, with three-quarters of British adults in favour and a brand new Parliament that is the most progressive ever, there’s a real chance that at last, politicians will do what the public has wanted them to do for many years now and deliver this compassionate reform so that people at the end of their lives can die with dignity at a time of their choosing.’
‘At Humanists UK, we’re committed to supporting this vital legislation. We will draw on decades of policy, research, and international experience to ensure Parliamentarians can address the key questions around eligibility, process, and safeguards.’
Bill scope
Some of the most courageous and determined campaigners we have ever met and worked with at Humanists UK have been incurably suffering people and their families, with conditions from multiple sclerosis, to Huntington’s, to locked-in syndrome, fighting for the right to assistance to die with dignity at a time of their choosing.
It is our longstanding policy of many decades that they should have that right and we’ve been proud to work with so many of them for many years, including in the last few weeks as they have attempted to secure a Bill that would offer them the dignity they deserve.
However, the Bill is now set in stone as one in which eligibility for assisted dying will be restricted to the terminally ill. No further debate on the merits of such an approach can change that.
This is still a historic Bill which would give thousands of suffering people the choice and dignity they desire and deserve and we are committed to working for its success.
Parliamentarians will have in front of them vital questions about eligibility, process, and safeguards, that it will be the duty of all of society to help them address. Drawing on our own decades of policy and research in this field, and on the best of the international experience of the 31 legal jurisdictions in the world that are ahead of us, we at Humanists UK look forward to supporting Kim and all legislators with this once-in-a-generation legislation.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
A new multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) poll of 7,000 British adults has shown that in every constituency bar one, most people support legalising assisted dying for the terminally ill and incurably suffering. Humanists UK commissioned the poll from Electoral Calculus, and is releasing it to coincide with Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. Today it said that MPs should back the law, and that the public want that law to allow terminally ill people to access an assisted death even when they are not in the last six months of their life.
The poll asked two questions:
In the first question, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed that assisted dying should be made legal for ‘adults who are intolerably suffering from an incurable condition and who wish to end their lives’. 74% of the public supported legalisation for the terminal and incurable, compared to just 6% opposed.
A second question describes the plight of someone who was suffering from advanced multiple sclerosis (MS) and has a clear and settled wish to die. It asks if it would be acceptable for a doctor to assist him to die. 73% of the public said it would be always or mostly acceptable, vs 9% saying rarely or never.
In every constituency, more people support than oppose assisted dying, and in 631 of the 632, most people support it. The only exception is Bradford West, which shows 49% support and 17% oppose – even there, the support is three times higher than the opposition.
In all 632 constituencies, a majority of people say it would be almost or mostly acceptable to allow the person suffering from MS the choice of an assisted death. The lowest level of support is Bradford West again, at 59%.
The poll also found that 83% of the non-religious and 65% of Christians support assisted dying, with just 9% and 14% opposed, respectively. 81% of the non-religious and 64% of Christians said it was acceptable for a doctor to assist the MS sufferer to die, versus 15% of the non-religious and 23% of Christians saying the opposite.
Kim Leadbeater MP MBE, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, is bringing a Private Member’s Bill on Choice at the End of Life which is having its First Reading today. This means the short and long title of the Bill are being announced. She has also announced the Bill will have its Second Reading on Friday 29 November. This will mark the first opportunity for MPs to debate and vote on assisted dying since 2015.
Humanists UK is supporting the Bill and hoping that unlike previous Bills that have failed, it will apply to all terminally ill people with no time limit.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘These latest polling figures show again that the overwhelming majority of the British public supports the right to choose an assisted death. But they now also show the depth of that support – extending to every constituency bar one. The time has come for MPs to align with public opinion and offer those facing unimaginable suffering the dignity and choice they deserve at the end of life.
‘Kim Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill represents a crucial step forward in the campaign to introduce assisted dying in the UK. We commend her for giving voice to the millions who believe that the choice of when and how to die should rest with the individual, not the state. We will continue to stand alongside those advocating for a compassionate, humane, and rights-based approach to end-of-life care, and we urge MPs to reflect on the clear will of their constituents during the upcoming debate.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
The poll of 7,208 British adults was commissioned by Humanists UK and carried out by Electoral Calculus on 4-7 October 2024.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Kim Leadbeater MBE, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, will formally introduce her Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Commons for its First Reading on Wednesday 16 October. This marks the first opportunity for MPs to debate and vote on an assisted dying bill since 2015.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘This really is a historic moment. There have been many assisted dying bills brought to Parliament before over the years. But now, with three-quarters of British adults in favour and a brand new Parliament that is the most progressive ever, there’s a real chance that at last, politicians will do what the public has wanted them to do for many years now and deliver this compassionate reform so that people at the end of their lives can die with dignity at a time of their choosing.’
Kim has announced that her Private Member’s Bill on Choice at the End of Life will have its Second Reading on Friday 29 November.
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament. A members’ debate and vote in the Senedd (the Welsh Parliament) will also be held on Wednesday 23 October on assisted dying for the terminally ill and incurably suffering.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists defend the right of each individual to live by their own personal values, and the freedom to make decisions about their own life so long as this does not result in harm to others. Humanists do not share the attitudes to death and dying held by some religious believers, in particular that the manner and time of death are for a deity to decide, and that interference in the course of nature is unacceptable. We firmly uphold the right to life but we recognise that this right carries with it the right of each individual to make their own judgement about whether their life should be prolonged in the face of pointless suffering.
We recognise that any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective. We also believe that the choice of assisted dying should not be considered an alternative to palliative care, but should be offered together as in many other countries.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Faith schools in the UK are a problem, and now the evidence is piling up. We’re not going to sugarcoat it. Faith schools are causing religious indoctrination, segregation, and division in this country. Here are six hard-hitting facts that expose the urgent need for change.
1) Churches are spending millions on evangelism
The Church of England is running a programme to evangelise and convert non-religious children into Christians. The Church’s Annual Report revealed a plan to pump £7 million into pushing their religion on children in state schools, in order to ‘double the number’ of young disciples by 2030. The strategy is already taking effect, with recent evidence emerging of children being taken to ‘prayer parties’, with bus-loads of children driven to happy-clappy US-style parties to sing that ‘Jesus died for me’.
2) Creationism STILL finds a way into state-funded schools
A damning report recently revealed that creationism was able to seep into a school that had no religious ethos in Wales. Bible quotes feature on science posters, as well as in student advice planners – which promoted bible passages on abuse and ‘doubting god’. The school in question was prominently advertising Christian clubs and the evangelical Christian ‘Alpha Course’.
3) Parents need to win ‘faith school points’ to gain admission
Faith schools award parents ‘faith school points’ in order to gain admission. These are granted by local churches and are based on how much parents engage in religious activities. These include attending services, joining parent-toddler groups, singing in choirs, participating in nativity plays, baptisms, and sometimes even – although it is against the law – donating to the Church. Parents shouldn’t need to jump through hoops just for their children to attend their local school.
4) They segregate communities, and poorer families lose out
Areas with a higher concentration of faith schools have more segregation, the latest evidence shows. Something that often shows up in the statistics, for example, is that faith schools admit fewer children on free school meals compared with their neighbouring comprehensives. Faith-based admissions policies are discriminatory, and are bad for children, families, and society.
5) Children with special educational needs lose out
The latest research reveals that faith schools admit fewer children with special educational needs or disabilities compared to non-religious community schools. This is simply because around a third of faith schools don’t make it plain that they can be admitted – or how. It’s an unholy mess.
6) Illegal faith schools STILL exist
There are at least 6,000 children in England trapped in illegal schools, enduring shocking conditions and a complete lack of safeguarding. Many of these so-called ‘schools’ are religious institutions claiming to offer ‘part-time’ education. In reality, they confine children to small rooms, forcing them to study scripture for hours on end each day. They are at risk of physical and sexual abuse, and we’re campaigning to shut these ‘schools’ down for good. The Labour Government has said it will ban them, and we will keep laying on the pressure to see these schools closed.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 020 7324 3072 or 020 3675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by 110,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Kim Leadbeater MP MBE, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, has announced that her Private Member’s Bill on Choice at the End of Life will have its Second Reading on Friday 29 November. This marks the first opportunity for MPs to debate and vote on an assisted dying bill since 2015.
Ms Leadbeater will formally introduce the bill to the House of Commons during its First Reading on Wednesday 16 October.
Humanists UK has welcomed the news and is urging MPs to vote in favour of choice, dignity, and compassion.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘This is a defining moment for our country. Kim Leadbeater’s bill offers Parliament a rare chance to bring about real, life-changing reform for adults who are intolerably suffering from incurable conditions.
‘For too long, people have been forced to suffer needlessly, deprived of the choice to die with dignity on their own terms. With overwhelming public support behind this bill, MPs have a duty to act. Legalising assisted dying with strict safeguards will ensure that no one has to endure unbearable suffering at the end of their life. This is about offering people control, compassion, and dignity when they need it most.’
A members’ debate and vote in the Senedd (the Welsh Parliament) will be held on Wednesday 23 October on assisted dying for the terminally ill and incurably suffering
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Conservative Party Conference was held at the International Convention Centre, Birmingham
At the Conservative Party Conference, Humanists UK hosted a fringe event where humanist members of the Conservative Party met to discuss their role in the party and politics as a whole, particularly in relation to issues like freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), freedom of expression, and defending civil liberties.
The fringe event, which was co-hosted by Conservative Humanists (one of several independent party-political humanist groups affiliated to Humanists UK), saw speakers pay tribute to the outgoing government’s commitment to international FoRB, including for humanists at risk, which was made a special focus through dedicated government roles as such as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on FoRB.
Conservative Humanists pledged to be a torchbearer for humanist values in the party as it charts its future direction following a general election which returned a Labour government after 14 years of Conservatives in power. Humanists in the party also vowed to make progress with their colleagues on issues such as faith-based discrimination in schools and humanist marriage, where the party’s stance in recent times has been quite distant from that of Humanists UK.
Advancing and upholding FoRB has been a major priority for Humanists UK in recent years. It has worked with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on issues relating to humanists persecuted for their beliefs overseas, and regularly speaks out on FoRB issues through diplomatic channels and at the UN Human Rights Council. Humanists UK repeatedly condemned the previous government’s Rwanda asylum policy on these same grounds.
Humanists UK attends all the major party conferences each year to meet with parliamentarians, advocate for humanist issues, and engage with its party-political members and supporters. Earlier in the 2024 season, it hosted events at the Green, Lib Dem, and Labour conferences too.
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Pictured: Pragna Patel [top left], Zara Kay [top right], Dr Kristin Aune [middle right], bottom row left to right: Alexander Barnes-Ross, Yehudis Fletcher, Rachael Reign, Dr James Murphy
This week, we held our groundbreaking Faith to Faithless Apostasy Conference online to confront the systemic nature of religious abuse. Alongside a cast of expert speakers, participants in the event included frontline service workers, apostates, victims of religious abuse, and members of the public.
Yehudis Fletcher, Faith to Faithless Policy Officer and founder of the anti-extremist organisation Nahamu, opened the conference by saying there was an urgent need to address the often-ignored, silenced, or covered-up forms of abuse within religious communities. Coercive control, shunning, domestic violence, and so-called ‘honour-based’ violence, she explained, are often perpetuated by systems of control within religious institutions and exacerbated by the failure of state institutions to intervene. Fletcher went on to explore how some leaders of minority religions act as gatekeepers, suppressing or misrepresenting the voices of many within their communities, particularly women and children.
Dismantling the ‘culture of impunity’
The keynote address was given by Pragna Patel, Co-Director of Project Resist and a founding member of Southall Black Sisters. Drawing on her four decades of experience as a feminist activist and advocate for women’s rights, Patel exposed how religious fundamentalism, particularly within South Asian communities in the UK, fuels control and violence against vulnerable individuals. As part of her keynote address Pragna Patel said:
‘State authorities have been slow to dismantle the culture of impunity that allows sexual abuse to thrive in minority communities. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the State facilitates the abuse of religious power by continuing to do business with so-called community leaders and religious figures of authority’
Her powerful analysis of religious practices and doctrines that normalise abuse offered a stark reminder of the role religion can play in promoting coercive control and silencing dissent.
Escaping high-control groups
Speakers shared harrowing personal stories of escaping high-control groups. Alexander Barnes-Ross, a former Scientologist, offered a moving testament to the courage it takes to leave such a community, detailing the emotional and psychological toll it exacts. Rachael Reign, Director of Surviving Universal UK, spoke of her own experience of exploitation and control within the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, and highlighted the disproportionate impact on racial minorities. Zara Kay, founder of Faithless Hijabi, spoke of her international work to increase the safety of ex-Muslims, and highlighted the importance of specialist therapists, who understand the impact and lasting effects of leaving high-control religious groups. Yehudis Fletcher provided insights into the specific struggles faced by people leaving Charedi communities in the UK today. Researchers Dr Kristin Aune and Dr James Murphy presented data-driven evidence, revealing the alarming extent to which religious systems can enable abuse and how state institutions often fail to protect those who leave.
Dr Kristen Aune presented her research in domestic abuse and Christian churches, highlighting that patriarchal interpretations of scripture can be extremely harmful. Dr James Murphy’s research, undertaken in partnership with Faith to Faithless, identified several common themes across the experiences of people leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These were: a deep legacy of pain and trauma,with sub themes of; broken self, shame and inadequacy, loss, isolation, and grief, struggles with mortality. He said:
‘The absolutely crucial point is that people who leave high-control religions need support, and that the support that they currently receive is inadequate… just because people should be getting something doesn’t mean that social services, or the Department for Work and Pensions, are providing the support they need.’
Exposing the critical issues
The conference was structured around two pressing issues: pervasive ‘rape culture’ and coercive control within some religious communities, and the overall failure of the state to adequately support those who escape high-control religions and cults. Discussions revealed how religious leadership can foster environments that promote harmful ideologies, normalising their control over people’s lives in ways that are often seen as morally ‘justified’. All speakers emphasised how British state institutions frequently overlooked or misunderstood the complex challenges faced by those leaving high-control religions, leaving apostates isolated and vulnerable.
One key outcome of the conference was that speakers and participants identified that there was a genuine, unmet need for much wider, more comprehensive awareness training on apostasy and religious abuse issues for workers in frontline services. Faith to Faithless offers apostasy awareness training to staff at the Home Office, police NHS, specialist charities, and social services, but this has been of a limited scale due to lack of central government buy-in or funding. Specialist training was a necessity for these services, speakers agreed, because apostates are frequently conditioned to distrust anyone outside their religious community, and face unique barriers to seeking help, making it essential that workers in frontline services are adequately equipped to understand and respond to their needs.
The Faith to Faithless helpline is a groundbreaking service dedicated to supporting people who have left high-control religious groups. So called ‘apostates’ often deal with social isolation, mental health issues, discrimination, and estrangement from their communities and families. The helpline, operating three days a week and staffed by trained volunteers, offers bespoke assistance, resources, and empathetic support to a diverse group, including ex-Muslims, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, ex-evangelicals, and ex-Mormons. It aims to bridge the gap in understanding and support for apostates, providing a crucial lifeline for those navigating the complexities of leaving high-control religious environments.
Calls are free from all mobiles and landlines and won’t appear on itemised bills.
You will also be able to email helpline@faithtofaithless.com for support, and emails will be replied to during our usual opening hours.
Notes
About Faith to Faithless
Faith to Faithless is the Humanists UK programme dedicated to providing specialist support to apostates. As well as providing a national helpline, it supports apostates through a programme of peer support facilitated by trained specialist volunteers, and provides awareness training to public services, including NHS divisions and police forces.
Faith to Faithless operates under a stringent safeguarding policy, prioritising the safety and wellbeing of all those reaching out for support.
Contact information
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 020 3675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 130,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Three private Christian schools and a group of parents are to sue the UK Government over its plans to impose VAT on English private school fees, the Timesreports, claiming that the plans are a breach of the parents’ human rights. Lawyers have written to ministers arguing the proposal would unlawfully discriminate against parents wishing to provide their children with a Christian education because it would force Christian schools to close. But Humanists UK disputes this. Even if the schools in question did have to close, human rights don’t guarantee their existence and state-funded Christian schools continue to operate.
One parent named in the letter said they would not send their child to a state school as they wanted to make sure their children received ‘a positively Christian education and not a secular education’.
But the European Convention on Human Rights provides that ‘In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.’ Some commentators sometimes use this to argue that parents have the right to the existence of particular types of school. But this is not the case: the state’s duty is one of neutrality. A state school that is neither religious nor humanist is such a neutral school. It does not interfere with parents’ right to bring up their children in line with their own religion or belief outside of school hours.
Furthermore, there are no ‘secular’ state-funded schools. About one third of all state-funded schools in England and Wales are of a religious character, and almost all of these are Christian. And even the two thirds of state schools that have no religious character are required by law to hold a mandatory daily act of Christian collective worship.
Humanists UK campaigns for an inclusive education and schools system that allows no privilege or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, and gives children and young people of all different backgrounds and beliefs an environment that lets them learn with and from each other. This includes campaigning for an end to religious discrimination in school admissions and employment, and for a progressive reform of the curriculum including religious education. That is possible while still respecting parents’ human rights.
Humanist UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘This case should not succeed on the facts and it is also misguided in principle. Children have the same fundamental rights concerning education regardless of the type of school they attend. Their access to a broad, balanced, and evidence-based education shouldn’t vary. We hope the UK Government will fight this case and we look forward to supporting them.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Humanists International welcomes the news that the High Court of Kenya has dismissed a petition to revoke the registration of its Associate member, Atheists in Kenya Society.
The decision follows a protracted legal battle that began in 2022, when Bishop Stephen Ndichu petitioned the courtto revoke Atheists in Kenya Society’s registration on the basis that the organization’s registration and continued operation violate several articles of the Kenyan Constitution.
In reaching this decision, Judge Mugambi opined that holding non-theistic or atheistic views is protected under Articles 8 and 32(4) of the Constitution, and that the petition was therefore without merit.
Executive Committee of AIK at Cafe Safari Nairobi – December 2021
Since its establishment Atheists in Kenya Society has worked to provide a community for atheists and foster open, rational, and scientific examination of the universe as well as advocate on the basis of humanist principles. They have sought to create acceptance of atheists living in Kenya.
Founded in 2013, Atheists in Kenya Society is an Associate Member of Humanists International. The organization became the first non-religious society to be registered under the Societies Act (CAP108) in February 2016 after its initial rejection. However, only two months later, the organization’s registration was suspended after the then-attorney general, Prof. Githu Muigai cited complaints from religious groups. The organization’s founder and President, Harrison Mumia, challenged their suspension at the High Court, succeeding in the reinstatement of society’s status in 2018.
While the 2018 ruling refrained from addressing whether atheist beliefs benefit from the protections afforded to religious beliefs in the Constitution, Judge Mugambi’s ruling makes clear that non-religious beliefs are offered equal protection under the law, underscoring that:
“In my view, it is a matter of conscience for any person to decide whether to believe in anything or be religious for if it was not the case, it will translate into people being compelled to believe in or practice what is actually against their conscience. The right of atheist (sic) should thus be protected under Article 32 […] it would be unconstitutional to impose a belief in any person if that person does not endorse as this amounts to theocratic tyranny which our constitution does [not] support as is made clear in Article 8 which provides that “there shall be no state religion” and Article 32 (4) which states that “A person shall not be compelled to act, or engage in any act, that is contrary to the person’s believe (sic) or religion.””
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Humanists International and several secular and humanist organisations have raised concerns about the handling of the Article 17 TFEU dialogue during the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
In 18 October 2024, the Hungarian Presidency hosted a conference titled “Shared Responsibility: Cooperation Between States and Religious Communities in Europe”. The event, organised under the framework of Article 17, excluded non-confessional organisations and representatives of religious minorities.
In a joint statement, Humanists International, the European Secularist Network, the European Association for Free Thought, and Egale criticized the lack of representation and called for more balanced engagement in future dialogues. The statement highlighted that humanist, secularist, and freethinking perspectives represent a significant segment of Europe’s population and should not be overlooked.
“The exclusion of non-confessional organisations, along with the absence of representatives from religious minorities, fails to reflect the diverse range of beliefs and worldviews that shape European societies”, the statement reads.
The signatories of the statement urged the upcoming Council Presidency trio (Denmark, Poland and Cyprus) to ensure that the Article 17 dialogue is equitable and constructive, engaging with both religious and non-confessional organisations.
For context, the Council of the European Union is a decision-making body of the EU, where Ministers from the 27 Member States meet to adopt laws and coordinate policies. Each Member State’s interests are represented by its Permanent Representation, which consists of ambassadors and diplomats based in Brussels who manage the day-to-day work of the Council. Further, the Council Presidency, held by a different EU member state every six months, is responsible for setting priorities, organizing and chairing meetings, and driving the Council’s legislative work during its term.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, has cited a submission made by Humanists International in his report on countering intolerance, underscoring that “blasphemy” laws are incompatible with international law
The Secretary-General’s report on “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief” was delivered as part of the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
The Report discussed this issue from numerous angles, but crucially, one of the Secretary-General’s nine concluding observations included the important affirmation that “blasphemy” laws are incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Another conclusion of the Report highlighted the role of the “Faith for Rights” framework, at which Humanists International is a regular participant.
The submission made by Humanists International was one of two submissions by the organization to the UN on the issue of “blasphemy” and the right to freedom of religion or belief in May of this year. The other submission was to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The Secretary-General cited Humanists International’s focus on the use of the six-part Rabat threshold when considering the potential criminalization of certain actions. The Secretary-General’s report also focused on Humanists International’s recommendations for alternatives to criminalization, such as positive counterspeech, education initiatives, and addressing the root causes of hatred.
The report was requested by Resolution 28/214, which was adopted without a vote on 22 December 2023. The Resolution affirmed many of the human rights principles regarding the combating of intolerance based on religion or belief. The Resolution was brought by Egypt, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A similar resolution, known as the 16/18 Resolution, has been brought to the table at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in parallel with the European Union’s annual Resolution on the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Every year, the UN Secretary-General produces several reports, as requested by specific resolutions of the UN, which outline the state of current human rights issues, trending topics within rights issues, and recommendations for how to combat the prevailing challenges.
Organization Description: The Secular Student Alliance is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and the only national organization dedicated to atheist, humanist, and other non-theist students. The Secular Student Alliance empowers secular students to proudly express their identity, build welcoming communities, promote secular values, and set a course for lifelong activism.
For nearly 25 years, the Secular Student Alliance has stood steadfast in our commitment to nonreligious youth and the unyielding principle of state-church separation. Our students have made and continue to make significant strides in normalizing nonreligion, promoting secular values, and actively advocating for the separation of state and church at local, state, and national levels.
Yet, as the election results remind us, our work is far from over, and our mission of empowering secular youth is more critical now than ever.
Today, as White Christian Nationalists and the Trump administration openly pursue an agenda to transform our democracy into a Christian theocracy, our commitment only grows stronger. They have laid bare their roadmap—a plan to turn our country from a land of freedom for all into one where a single religious ideology dictates the lives of every American.
All of us at the Secular Student Alliance are deeply committed to working within the larger secular movement, alongside progressive organizations and allied interfaith communities, to build a strong, inclusive, and just future for all.
During Trump’s first term, our students faced escalating hostility—bullying, harassment, and intimidation, often fueled by conservative religious groups. The challenges of the next four years will be formidable, with continued attacks not only on nonreligious students but also on the LGBTQ+ community, people of color, women, and the very health of our planet.
Now, more than ever, our students need shared spaces where they can connect, learn, and organize—exactly what we provide. Our students remain on the front line of the fight to preserve public education, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of, and from, religion. Our services will be more essential than ever, and we are deeply grateful for your support.
Together, we can protect and empower our students, helping them become the advocates for secular values and the future leaders our nation so urgently needs. Our resilience in the face of Christian nationalism drives us forward.
Your support is essential to our mission. A donation to the Secular Student Alliance ensures we have the resources to provide direct guidance, support, and—if necessary—legal aid to students who will bear the brunt of the upcoming administration’s agenda. Your contributions empower us to organize against the most extreme religious-based policies and to uphold our shared values.
Investing in today’s students is investing in tomorrow’s leaders. The fight against Christian Nationalism will span decades. By supporting the Secular Student Alliance, you are helping us fight the battles of today while building the foundation for the struggles of tomorrow.
We are in this together, and together, we will continue the fight for a free and secular nation for future generations.
Organization Description: The Secular Student Alliance is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and the only national organization dedicated to atheist, humanist, and other non-theist students. The Secular Student Alliance empowers secular students to proudly express their identity, build welcoming communities, promote secular values, and set a course for lifelong activism.
This fall, Secular Student Alliance chapters nationwide are mobilizing to educate their peers about the critical impact of Project 2025 and exposing efforts to restrict voting rights for youth and marginalized communities ahead of the upcoming presidential election.
To spread awareness about the dangers of Project 2025, SSA chapters are hosting free screenings of the documentary BAD FAITH, which highlights the growing threat of Christian Nationalism as a powerful anti-democratic force. Shockingly, 42% of young people don’t know enough about Project 2025 to form an opinion, but once they learn about it, the response is clear—they strongly oppose it.
In 2023 alone, 150 bills were introduced to restrict voting rights. To highlight this alarming reality, our students are hosting free screenings of SUPPRESSED AND SABOTAGED: The Fight to Vote, which shares personal stories of people in battleground states who face the brunt of voter suppression—older adults, students, people of color, and those with disabilities.
But our students aren’t stopping at education—they’re mobilizing. SSA members are volunteering with voter rights organizations and hosting voter registration drives to ensure their peers are ready to vote. Over 80% of SSA student members are already registered, but they’re working tirelessly to make sure everyone is informed and prepared to vote.
Because of your support, we continue to empower our students to educate about Christian Nationalism, safeguard voting rights, and protect our democracy. Your contributions ensure that these young leaders have the tools they need to inspire change on their campuses and beyond.
Organization Description: The Secular Student Alliance is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and the only national organization dedicated to atheist, humanist, and other non-theist students. The Secular Student Alliance empowers secular students to proudly express their identity, build welcoming communities, promote secular values, and set a course for lifelong activism.
By Kevin Bolling
Last year, the Secular Student Alliance chapter at the University of Texas, San Antonio, took a courageous stand for reproductive rights during the National Day of Action for Reproductive Rights. Amid a harsh political climate in Texas, where some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws had taken effect, these students organized a protest and march to advocate for bodily autonomy and demand that the university protect reproductive healthcare on campus.
“Texas is at the center of this,” one student leader shared. “These laws are unpopular, authoritarian, and will impact our most vulnerable communities. A better society will only be achieved if we fight for economic and social justice together.”
The students turned their passion into action. Despite the university’s lack of response to their demands for accessible reproductive healthcare, including free menstrual products, contraceptives, and pregnancy tests, the SSA chapter began tabling regularly on campus. They distributed over 500 boxes of Plan B emergency contraceptives, along with condoms, dental dams, lube, tampons, and pads, all free to students.
Their efforts reached far beyond UTSA. Recognizing that this struggle wasn’t just a Texas issue, SSA staff shared the program with chapters nationwide, empowering other students to protect their peers’ reproductive rights and distribute Plan B.
Through your support, we are able to provide students with the resources they need to envision and lead bold initiatives. Together, we can continue to support nonreligious youth and promote reproductive healthcare access for students across the country. Your contributions help ensure these young activists have the tools to make real change on their campuses and beyond.
Organization Description: Secular Connexion Séculière (SCS) is a national organization dedicated to advocating and lobbying for atheist rights in Canada, to facilitating communication and dialogue among Canadian atheists, and to communicating Canadian human rights values to the world. SCS does not have, nor does it seek, any governing powers in the Canadian atheist community. Rather, it seeks support for its efforts to defend non-believers right to freedom from religion, to lobby the Canadian government on the behalf of Canadian atheists, to provide communication conduits for Canadian atheist organizations.
December 6, 2024 – 12:00 am
This morning, Dec 6, 2024, after months of trying to get a reply from the Royal Canadian Legion, SCS received an email from the Legion stating that the Chaplain’s Manual is now longer in use, and that it has been removed from their list of resources. We have no word about the insistence of having a religious chaplain at official Legion services, but we will pursue this.
Is this an SCS success? Who knows? We don’t have any dates to co-relate to our campaign. The best we could claim is influence so it goes into the good news column.
History The Royal Canadian Legion publishes an Chaplain’s manual intended to standardize ceremonies for comrades of the Legion. I addition, the Legion insists that an official Legion ceremony must have a Religious leader in attendance. This creates problems for Legion members who wishes to have a secular ceremony, led by a Secular Humanist officiant.
SCS is trying to get the Legion to change its manual to be inclusive of non-believer rites, and to change its regulations to allow for ceremonies that are secular, and that require no religious chaplain to be in attendance.
We have written Legion President, Berkley Lawrence, and await his response.
Input from Legion members would have considerable influence. Please write President Lawrence, and ask him to make the Chaplain’s Manual inclusive of non-believers. Go to https://www.legion.ca/contact-us, and fill in their form.
Organization Description: Secular Connexion Séculière (SCS) is a national organization dedicated to advocating and lobbying for atheist rights in Canada, to facilitating communication and dialogue among Canadian atheists, and to communicating Canadian human rights values to the world. SCS does not have, nor does it seek, any governing powers in the Canadian atheist community. Rather, it seeks support for its efforts to defend non-believers right to freedom from religion, to lobby the Canadian government on the behalf of Canadian atheists, to provide communication conduits for Canadian atheist organizations.
December 4, 2024 – 12:00 am
As of December 5, jeewan chanicka [sic] is not longer the Director of Education for the Waterloo Region District School Board. No explanation for his departure has been given. This has nothing to do with our campaign to use the WRDSB as a starting point for the campaign detailed below, except that we will have to establish contact with the interim director, and the committee on Equity and Inclusion. We would prefer to get the boards to agree to the playing instrumental versions of O Canada, rather than going the Human Right Commission route.
Across Canada schools begin their school day with the playing of O Canada, usually with the official, theist lyrics. Intentionally or not, this violates the right of non-believing students to freedom from religion. Additionally, French teachers often ask students to memorize the official French lyrics that are even more theist than the English ones. This is a serious case of our non-believing students’ right to freedom from religion in public schools being denied.
Public school boards do have a dilemma. They wish to conform to the law of the land (National Anthems Act of 1980), but now face requests from us to stop using those lyrics. Most French teachers will probably allow students to memorize the secular version we have published here when asked. However, we would like the practice to be universal (http://www.secularconnexion.ca/a-national-anthem-for-everyone/).
To help boards avoid this dilemma, SCS is asking boards to play instrumental versions only, and to formally ask French teachers to allow the memorizing of the secular French version we have published. We are couching this in terms of the accommodations that religious students receive to honour their cultural and faith practices.
Our first target board is The Waterloo Region District School Board, and we have written their director of education with our request for this accommodation. We await his reply. This my turn into a human rights case before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and we have some students who are interested in putting a complaint forward.
Organization Description: Secular Connexion Séculière (SCS) is a national organization dedicated to advocating and lobbying for atheist rights in Canada, to facilitating communication and dialogue among Canadian atheists, and to communicating Canadian human rights values to the world. SCS does not have, nor does it seek, any governing powers in the Canadian atheist community. Rather, it seeks support for its efforts to defend non-believers right to freedom from religion, to lobby the Canadian government on the behalf of Canadian atheists, to provide communication conduits for Canadian atheist organizations.
November 25, 2024 – 12:00 am
For years, “Bob”* has suffered systemic and systematic discrimination from the Calgary Police Services. He launched a thoroughly documented complaint to the Alberta Human rights Commission in 2021, only to have the Commission claim he didn’t launch it until 2023 and that many incidents had happened before the one year limitation period.(?!) Recently, The Commission has refused to hear his case so “Sgt. Bob” has no option except to launch an expensive legal appeal through the courts. This case is important to us all because it is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms case and will send a warning to all other government entities that they can not discriminate in this manner. *”Sgt. Bob” is a pseudonym necessary to protect a real person’s privacy. SCS and CFIC have both verified the legitimacy of his complaint by examining copies of the documents he has submitted to the Human Rights Commission.
Please donate by e-transfer to treasurer@secularconnexion.ca. Put your email and “Supporting Sgt. Bob” in the memo section. We will forward the funds directly to “Sgt. Bob” for his use, send you a receipt, and an update on the amount raised.
Pendant des années, « Bob » a subi une discrimination systémique et systématique de la part des services de police de Calgary. Il a déposé une plainte bien documentée auprès de la Commission des droits de la personne de l’Alberta en 2021, mais la Commission a affirmé qu’il ne l’avait pas lancée avant 2023 et que de nombreux incidents s’étaient produits avant le délai de prescription d’un an.(?!) Récemment, la Commission a refusé d’entendre sa cause, de sorte que le « sergent Bob » n’a pas d’autre choix que de lancer un appel juridique coûteux devant les tribunaux. Cette affaire est importante pour nous tous parce qu’il s’agit d’une affaire fondée sur la Charte des droits et libertés et qu’elle enverra un avertissement à toutes les autres entités gouvernementales qu’elles ne peuvent pas faire de discrimination de cette façon. *”Sgt. Bob » est un pseudonyme nécessaire pour protéger la vie privée d’une personne réelle. SCS et CFIC ont tous deux vérifié la légitimité de sa plainte en examinant des copies des documents qu’il a soumis à la Commission des droits de l’homme.
Veuillez faire un don par virement électronique à treasurer@secularconnexion.ca. Mettez votre courriel et « Soutenir le sergent Bob » dans la section de la note de service. Nous transmettrons les fonds directement au « sergent Bob » pour qu’il l’utilise, nous vous enverrons un reçu et une mise à jour sur le montant recueilli.
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
This excerpt is from a longer article originally published on the substack “Realities Last Stand.” The author, Dr. Colin Wright is the CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand, an evolutionary biology PhD, and Manhattan Institute Fellow. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Times, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, Quillette, Queer Majority, and other major news outlets and peer-reviewed journals.
In a stunning series of events, two leading media organizations—The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy. The study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University, found that certain DEI practices could induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric. With billions of dollars invested annually in these initiatives, the public has a right to know if such programs—heralded as effective moral solutions to bigotry and hate—might instead be fueling the very problems they claim to solve. The decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of ideological biases in the media.
The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.
The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.
This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?
For Joel Finkelstein, the NCRI researcher leading the study, the editorial reversals are as revealing as the data itself. In communications with reporters, he described the findings as “sobering with likely impact for DEI policy, as well as congressional impacts and potentially civil litigation.” Finkelstein further stated that, “This seems like an effort to suppress research that challenges prevailing narratives around DEI and worryingly, implicates standard practices for egregious harms.”
The harm in question goes far beyond the scope of individual programs. Across multiple experiments, the study documented a consistent pattern: exposure to anti-oppressive DEI rhetoric heightened participants’ tendency to attribute hostility and bias to ambiguous situations. In one experiment, participants read excerpts from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, juxtaposed against a neutral control text about corn production. Afterward, they were asked to evaluate a hypothetical scenario: an applicant being rejected from an elite university. Those exposed to the DEI materials were far more likely to perceive racism in the admissions process, despite no evidence to support such a conclusion.
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
With the help of a United Nations agency, Nasser Yousefi established a school for children in his native Iran 20 years ago. Since the theocracy controls and restricts education, his “Peace School” remained unaccredited. During this time Dr. Yousefi gained unique insights into the role of education in shaping individuals. He has recently been accredited by the Ontario government to operate a new “Peace School” in Thornhill in the greater Toronto area. . He believes that traditional school structures no longer meet the needs of students. He argues that schools must adapt before they become obsolete but that humanistic philosophy and psychology can prevent this collapse.
In this conversation Dr. Yousefi engages with fellow psychologist and New Enlightenment Project president, Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson. They discuss the educational philosophy guiding the Children’s Peace School.
Robertson: I took a quick look at your website Nasser. The individualized, experiential and holistic education you offer students appears to have a Montessori flavour. Please comment on the education you offer and why you have introduced it to Canadian students.
Yousefi: First and foremost, I must clarify that while I hold deep respect for the work and programs of Maria Montessori, our school does not follow the Montessori model. The Montessori model is based on cognitive psychology, whereas we do not adhere to cognitive approaches. We explicitly and distinctly operate based on the principles of humanistic psychology and humanistic education.
It has been twenty years since the founding of our school in Iran, and unfortunately, during these twenty years, the Ministry of Education in Iran has never agreed to officially recognize our system or accept our programs. As a result, our students have never been able to obtain official diplomas. However, over the past twenty years, our school in Iran has become a unique model that we needed to register internationally and introduce as a humanistic educational model to the world… Among the countries we considered, the Ontario government was one of the few that granted us permission to establish this school, and it is an honor to be able to continue this model in Canada.
Undoubtedly, we need support and collaboration on this journey. It is essential that all humanistic groups and movements globally strengthen, support, and establish humanistic schools. I firmly believe that humanistic schools will have a direct impact on the global peace process, and the world needs schools based on the humanistic model.
I believe that the humanist movement and the peace movement are closely linked, and it is crucial to prepare generations for peaceful living based on respect for humanity. I am committed to this cause and am eager to collaborate with all humanistic groups.
Robertson: I assume that the humanistic psychology to which you refer would be built on the work of Maslow and Rogers. Their psychology, as I understand it, intersects with that of Montessori in that both emphasize the individual and self-actualization. I recognize, however, that cognitive approaches can be more directive and that Rogers, in particular, eschewed such approaches. Does this relate in some ways to your approach to education?
On a related issue, a person-centered psychology necessarily implies a self. Such a self would give rise to what we understand as “mind” with a capacity for logical constancy, othering and projecting oneself into past events and anticipated future ones. The implied human potential forced changes to both Fruedianism and Skinnerian behaviorism. Would you say you are in the process of developing the minds of these young students? If so, what to you emphasize in doing so?
Yousefi: You are absolutely right; our educational program is based on the theories of Rogers and Maslow, while also being significantly influenced by Paulo Freire’s perspectives. I am excited to share that I have authored a book on humanistic education, which is set to be published by a university in England. Additionally, a university in Germany has expressed interest in publishing it in German. I hope to have the opportunity to further develop and promote these ideas in Canada as well.
It is surprising to see that humanistic educational models are still relatively unfamiliar in Canada, with many schools not yet recognizing this approach. I believe it is crucial to collaboratively introduce humanistic ideas to educators and families. I am hopeful that the Peace School will serve as a valuable platform for families who are interested in integrating this model into their children’s education.
Robertson: Cognitivist approaches attempt to build thinking skills but, as we mentioned, Rogers expressed concern that such approaches in therapy can potentially undermine individual autonomy by suggesting answers. He focused on the affective with the assumption that once the relevant emotions are expressed the answers for therapy would be found within. I suspect educating young minds is different in some ways. How do you avoid cognitivist approaches when educating young minds?
Yousefi: Cognitivism was a major breakthrough in psychology and philosophy. At a time when behaviorists insisted on limiting awareness and education to the transfer of information through stimulus and response, cognitivists sought to elevate knowledge to a level of understanding. This meant that they wanted knowledge to become a stable behavior in an individual. Therefore, it is important to appreciate the efforts of cognitivists. In the process of education, we can certainly utilize their achievements, just as we can benefit from the techniques of behaviorists in education.
However, the main problem arises when these approaches… insist that all educational practices must follow their specific model. Despite their efforts to understand the human mind, cognitivists viewed humans only within the limits of cognition and intellectual abilities. This approach advanced to the point where for Piaget, the only thing that mattered in humans or children was intelligence—intelligence defined as mathematical logic and the ability to reason based on predetermined patterns. The excessive focus on intelligence led many schools to direct all their efforts toward enhancing students’ intelligence… As a result, schools became more about educational techniques than educational philosophy. Consequently, educational systems and schools increasingly distanced themselves from understanding and awareness.
Cognitivist schools, from Montessori to Waldorf and even Gardner Schools became limited to educational techniques and skills, each focusing on raising students’ intelligence levels in a concentrated manner. However, they overlooked the fact that the brain is enriched through life experiences. Every experience, every encounter with challenges, and every individual or social event connects thousands of synapses in the brain. Simply creating neural connections through techniques or even with the help of neurofeedback devices alone is unlikely to generate new experiences. Humans learn through connection, diversity, work, hands-on activities, and sensory experiences, turning that learning into a lasting behavior.
The problem with behaviorist and cognitivist schools was that they confined students within the four walls of a classroom and, through a series of predetermined lessons, tried to impart a set of information or skills. The focus on memory in behaviorism and repetition in cognitivism distanced students from the essence of life and real-life experiences. Students sit in repetitive classes with a teacher who often dominates the conversation, listening for hours, memorizing, and repeating, calling this process “education.” The influence of cognitivism in education grew so strong that even behaviorists, who could have had a variety of programs based on their models, centered their lessons on cognitive tasks. As a result, a significant portion of schools worldwide, at least since the 1960s, have been dominated by memory, repetition, and predetermined programs.
In humanistic education, the primary focus is on human experiences. Students must experience, touch, see, face various events, and connect with them. In humanistic psychology, intelligence is just one attribute. It is not a criterion for classifying people but a feature like any other human characteristic that can be nurtured over time. Intelligence is not a fixed, uniform, or all-encompassing phenomenon. Furthermore, cognitive intelligence is just one aspect of human development.
Humanistic education is equipped with holistic thinking and aims at the integrated and comprehensive development of students. All the needs of children and all domains of development are important, and each domain should have the opportunity to emerge and be experienced. Cognitive growth, without attention to emotional, social, and even physical development, is incomplete and will sooner or later come to a halt. Focusing on a single ability or talent, or even one area of development, will lead to the creation of one-dimensional individuals—people who, like robots, may excel in one area but perform repetitive and stereotypical tasks within that domain.
Cognitivists define intelligence as closely related to mathematical logic. In their view, an intelligent person is someone who can think, analyze, evaluate, and examine based on mathematical logic and predetermined patterns. They gave intelligence a systematic and logical structure so that they could identify, predict, guide, and control the functioning of the brain, cognition, and learning. Essentially, intelligence was aligned with mathematical logic so it could be controlled, directed, and predicted. Cognitivists are pleased that they can control, guide, and predict cognition and learning, seeing it as an advantage for psychology. As a result, control over human beings is a common ground between behaviorists and cognitivists. These two psychological approaches are keen on controlling people—one through stimulus and response, and the other by controlling brain function.Because emotions and feelings cannot easily be controlled or predicted, cognitivists do not consider them as part of intelligence. Gardner, however, attempted to categorize emotions and feelings as a form of intelligence, hoping that by doing so, they could be brought under rational control.
For cognitivists, a teenage poet who can compose hundreds of beautiful verses is not considered a genius, but a teenager who can memorize and recite a thousand verses of the same poet might be regarded as one. According to the cognitivist perspective, figures like Marcel Proust, Mother Teresa, Mandela, Albert Schweitzer, and Gandhi are not geniuses because they were unpredictable and uncontrollable by those in power. Even Leonardo da Vinci’s genius is recognized by cognitivists mainly when he is viewed as an industrial designer or architect performing remarkable calculations in his inventions, or adhering to mathematical principles in his designs and paintings.
Despite all of this, neither cognitivists nor behaviorists have a comprehensive set of criteria for defining intelligence. They rely on a limited set of psychological tests to evaluate intelligence—tests that even their fellow cognitivists do not fully accept, as all agree that these tests only assess parts of the intelligence process. Modern psychology remains skeptical of these psychological tests and is careful not to use them to label, classify, or assign value to individuals.
In his book *The Future of the Mind,* scientist Michio Kaku writes that intelligence is the human ability to construct a model of the world in order to create a future. It’s about being able to use divergent thinking to turn all experiences and learnings into a structure that shapes the future. Preparing for change, building a better world, and contributing to a better future are, according to Kaku, the best indicators of intelligence.
Maslow and Rogers emphasize that intelligence is just one of many human abilities and characteristics. It holds no superiority over other human capacities. Intelligence might be understood as a way for a person to utilize all of their abilities effectively—to solve problems, dream, create new ideas, and bring those ideas to fruition. Unlike cognitivists, humanists do not view intelligence as a linear, controllable, or predictable entity. Intelligence is a highly creative and unpredictable process, which serves to integrate all abilities and capacities. However, this does not mean that a person must always behave intelligently or be predictable in every aspect of life. Intelligence requires the capability to disrupt linear mathematical logic, allowing individuals to move beyond their learned knowledge. Humanistic schools strive to help students use their diverse life experiences to build a better world.
Robertson: I had not heard anyone suggest that people like Schweitzer and Gandhi were not geniuses, just the opposite, in fact. I think we can agree that logical thought is related to mathematical thinking in some ways. If I understand correctly, your concern is that logical thought can be understood as having a predetermined structure thereby restricting and limiting outcomes. I would think that you still teach mathematics at the Peace School, but that you also place an emphasis on creativity. Would this be correct?
Also, you referenced Paulo Freire who, in adult education, used the life experiences of learners to teach literacy and mathematics. How do you apply this to elementary students who have limited life experiences? Do you create experiences for the students that can then be discussed?
Yousefi: Yes, I agree with you. It’s well known that figures like Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer were remarkable, but there’s rarely a discussion labeling them as geniuses. This is partly due to the linear, binary thinking typical of behaviorists and cognitivists, who don’t generally define prominent figures in social or emotional growth as geniuses. These days, we encounter books and articles that try to diagnose Gandhi with bipolar disorder or Mother Teresa with depression. Yet, few attempt to ascribe such traits to scientists like Marie Curie or Louis Pasteur. This reflects a conditioned mindset shaped by behaviorist education, which often seeks to rationalize the relentless energy and resilience of figures like Gandhi and Mother Teresa by attributing them to psychological issues rather than recognizing their brilliance.
I’m not saying that Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, or Nelson Mandela were geniuses. I don’t favor such language, and I never use terms like genius, elite, or exceptional. My point is that linear, binary thinking applies quantitative standards, even to genius, rather than qualitative ones. In this mindset, everything is reduced to numbers.
In the Peace School, we emphasize mathematics with our students. We introduce them to various philosophies of mathematics, from Euclidean to fuzzy mathematics, and our approach extends beyond mere calculations. We explore core concepts and elements of mathematics, and our students enjoy this more expansive form of math education. Even in logic and mathematical logic, we explore multiple narratives, styles, and viewpoints. Education’s role is to expose students to the richness and diversity within every field of human knowledge. Just as we encounter a variety of perspectives in art, literature, and empirical science, similar diversity exists in mathematics and its definitions. It’s essential to share this diversity with students, while behaviorists and cognitivists often fail to do so, presenting only rigid, predetermined definitions. This mindset struggles to accept that people can or should change.
Now, about Freire: I’ve written a book titled “Reinterpreting Freire’s Works with a Focus on Education.” In this book, I attempt to revisit Freire’s educational perspectives and offer my narrative. I use the term narrative because this is my personal interpretation of Freire’s views on education. I did not aim to present myself as a researcher or an author but rather as a storyteller. My interpretations are based on my experiences working with children’s education and with diverse community groups, including rural and marginalized urban populations.
Many people know Freire primarily for his work in adult literacy, but literacy education was just one facet of his broader efforts. To limit Freire’s legacy to literacy diminishes the broader intellectual movement he championed. Freire was a fierce critic of behaviorism on an international scale, standing against behaviorists and cognitivists to defend liberating, human-centered education. He was deeply influenced by Sartre and Erich Fromm. In his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Freire famously compares schools to banking systems. He argued that the evaluation systems in schools, often based on exam scores, mirror banking logic: just as banks use numbers and percentages to communicate with clients, schools use grades to communicate with families. This numerical evaluation system is easier for the public to understand, largely because people have been conditioned to associate learning progress with scores.
However, Freire’s criticism of the “banking” approach in education goes beyond just grades. He noted that schools predominantly engage students’ short-term memory, much like how banks store data. Schools insist on students accumulating information, akin to how banks accumulate data. For schools, emotional and social needs are secondary; the focus is on students’ ability to answer specific, predefined exam questions.
Freire questioned why schools have adopted this banking approach and why they evaluate and categorize students based on numbers. He believed that the foundation of education in most schools globally operates as a system of dominance. This educational system behaves like an oppressive force, not listening to its audience, not allowing dialogue, not considering their needs, not encouraging inquiry, and running on rigid, predetermined programs. This model is similar to that of oppressors and dictators who impose their beliefs as absolute. Schools and educational systems rooted in behaviorist and cognitivist approaches treat students in this authoritarian manner, denying them participation in educational planning. Ironically, even in countries that advocate democracy, many school systems are still grounded in control and dominance, making it unlikely for students in such environments to be prepared for democratic societies.
Freire argued that education must meet students’ needs within their communities for learning to be truly effective and sustainable. Otherwise, education cannot inspire the enthusiasm and motivation necessary for genuine engagement. Freire laid the theoretical groundwork for humanistic schools, similar to how thinkers like Erich Fromm, Maslow, and Rogers expanded the theoretical base of humanism. Although Freire proposed the basis of humanistic education, he never had the opportunity to establish or manage a humanistic school directly. Freire offers remarkable insights to the educational community, and I believe educators, curriculum planners, and school administrators should explore his ideas.
Robertson: I am not aware of Marie Curie or Louis Pasteur ever writing that they were depressed. Mother Teresa, in “Dark Night of the Soul,” indicated symptoms of her depression, such as feelings of worthlessness, persistent sadness, and a lack of joy in her work. Former volunteers and medical professionals have criticized her for failing to provide adequate pain killers to patients in her hospices. She is on record as saying that their suffering had spiritual value. I don’t know how these things are tied together, but it seems to me the exploration would be worthwhile. In “Psychoanalysis and Religion.” Eric Fromm states:
“When man has thus projected his own most valuable powers onto God, what of his relationship to his own powers? They have become separated from his self. Everything he has is now God’s and nothing is left in him. His only access to himself is through God. In worshipping God he tries to get in touch with that part of himself which he has lost through projection. (p. 50)“
I would think that this is an important discussion to have but probably not at the elementary or Division 1 level. How would you begin to prepare students to have such discussions?
Irrespective of any relationship contradictions, the genius of Gandhi was in devising and implementing a strategy of non-violence in a fight for national liberation – a strategy copied by people like Martin Luther King Jr. and, to a certain extent, Nelson Mandela.
Most of the people you are valorizing here – Gandhi who opposed British imperialism, Fromm who was a Marxist of the Frankfurt School, and Nelson Mandela who opposed a system of apartheid – are revolutionaries. As you mentioned, Paulo Freire is famous for his book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” wherein he talks about using skills like literacy and mathematics to describe experiences of oppression. In one country, for example, peasants were taught to write the phrase “Why does the church have all the land and we have none?” and this phrase began appearing in public places. Is there a sense that Ontario students are oppressed in the way that Freire describes? How would you use Freire’s approach in, for example, teaching English literacy to Division One students in that province?
Yousefi: As a respected professor, psychologist, and specialist in Canada, I would greatly appreciate your insights: Do Freire’s ideas apply to Canadian students? I believe this question is common among experts in Europe and North America: Are children in these regions experiencing oppression, and are there oppressive forces that we should make students aware of? It’s interesting to note that many educators in Europe, the U.S., and Canada are deeply influenced by Freire and strive to introduce his ideas to their students.
Freire often discusses systems that control and dominate in their interactions with individuals. According to him, any controlling system, wherever it exists, is inherently oppressive, and anyone subject to it is oppressed. If we accept this definition, we can explore many forms of systemic oppression that may affect children in Europe and North America. Therefore, I am sharing these thoughts as questions, not as definitive opinions, and I would appreciate it if you consider them as such.
For instance, is the consumer culture—which leads to environmental destruction—a form of widespread oppression? Are students who are indirectly affected by this environmental threat considered oppressed? Are children influenced by large advertising systems to consume more, and does this constitute a form of oppression? Do the standards and norms set by advertising networks in nutrition, health, arts, and literature represent oppression? Could issues like climate change, melting ice caps, and the extinction of species, both locally and globally, be considered forms of oppression against children? Is promoting education systems that emphasize competition, rewards, individualism, and a narrow focus a type of oppression? And is the lack of diverse perspectives in education systems, often controlled by behaviorist approaches, a form of oppression against students?
I lack detailed information about the specific issues faced by Canadian students, but official statistics on children and students in Europe and the U.S. reveal various forms of oppression. For example, child sexual abuse is a serious threat in Europe. Educational disparities affect communities of color in the U.S. Social justice has become a significant focus in Europe and the U.S., with democratic school communities working to address these issues with their governments. Could educational inequality itself be a form of oppression against children?
Additionally, the World Health Organization reports on the rising threats of collective depression and loneliness among teenagers in Europe and the U.S., often due to family dynamics that leave many students feeling isolated. The situation of immigrant children and First Nations children in Canada and the U.S. has also been a significant area of concern among experts.
I present these as questions, not conclusions. These are not definitive claims about the state of students in Canada, and it’s possible that Canadian students may not face these specific issues. However, if any of these challenges do affect Canadian students, perhaps Freire’s concept of oppression and the effort to improve students’ experiences through education could provide a useful framework for addressing these issues. It seems that psychologists and humanistic educators could potentially play a significant role in advocating for children’s well-being.
Robertson: You asked me to share my insights about the application of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed to young students. I want to repeat that while I know something of Freire’s approach to adult education, I had not considered his approach with respect to children’s education. However, I accept your challenge to explore the application of Freire’s notion that “any controlling system, wherever it exists, is inherently oppressive, and anyone subject to it is oppressed.”
It seems that the family could fall into this definition of a “controlling system.” Infants are subjected to feeding schedules. Later, the parents of most families establish systems of discipline. I had one girl tell me that her father’s talks were “too long” and this constituted “child abuse.” Schools in some jurisdictions, and I think Ontario is one, seemed to have accepted this notion that families are oppressive. They have mandated teachers to change children’s genders and not tell the parents. If we understand that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition, then these educators are keeping children’s mental health concerns from their parents. This can only be justified by people who think that parents are inherently oppressive.
But schools are also open to charges of oppression. To begin with, children of certain ages are required, by law, to attend school – forced attendance. Second, teachers ordinarily know more than students. This implies a power relationship based on knowledge possession. Third, regardless of how democratic the school, moral assumptions govern relationships. For example, students in a kindergarten class in Montreal were subjected to a “struggle session” in which the educator challenged their knowledge as to whether they were boys or girls. I think the educator was motivated by a moral concern to promote diversity but she forced the students into submission on the subject while weakening the children’s identities. If you are interested, here is the transcript of the lesson published on the New Enlightenment Project website: The sex of our angels – THE NEW ENLIGHTENMENT PROJECT (nep-humanism.ca)
You changed the definition of oppression in the second part of your answer to me. Whereas. in the first part, oppression was defined as the consequence of power relationships, in the second it is the product of bad choices. The consequences of consumerism can be seen as consumers making uninformed choices. Similarly, climate change can be seen as the failure to regulate. With this second definition, the weakening of family or school structure can be seen as a form of oppression denying children their necessities. I am certain that Peace School has considered these issues in greater detail than I, and I would like to hear your response.
Yousefi: If I understood correctly, you asked how we can expect student education to be based on their life experiences when their experiences are limited, and how we address this challenge in our school. That’s why I detailed our daily practices—how we consistently introduce students to new areas. I am certain that traditional schools cannot offer this variety of opportunities on a daily basis. Every day, we organize off-campus visits for different groups of students. I emphasize—every single day and continuously! We also have daily programs like inviting guests. Each class has the opportunity to either invite a guest or visit someone during the week. As a result, given the number of classes, we sometimes have up to three specialist guests for different classes in one day. Occasionally, almost every month, a class might go on a one- or two-day trip based on one of their educational programs or lessons. The notes I shared with you are not merely taken from the internet; we actively engage students in these activities daily. For example, our primary school students interact with 12 to 15 different teachers throughout the week, whereas most elementary schools typically have only one or two permanent teachers for their students throughout the year. This unique feature is only possible in humanistic-based schools.
Additionally, regarding Mother Teresa, I did not suggest that we discuss her religious views with students. My intention was to highlight that cognitivists, who see all aspects of a person through the lens of intelligence and cognitive development, often fail to recognize social activists or creative artists as geniuses. In their typical definition, genius is limited to fields like mathematics, science, engineering, and logical reasoning. This mindset easily leads them to question the mental well-being of prominent social figures. My point is not whether Mother Teresa or Mandela experienced depression; every individual can have a range of well-being or distress. However, society, influenced by cognitivists, rarely questions the well-being of prominent scientists and even views conditions like autism or dyslexia as unique traits in them. In contrast, if an artist like Van Gogh has an emotional disorder, his creativity is always judged in the context of that emotional struggle. If a peace activist uses tranquilizers, their emotional health is scrutinized indefinitely.
I hope I was able to convey my point clearly. Essentially, what I’m trying to say is that society, influenced by cognitive perspectives, often prioritizes science, mathematics, and logical reasoning above all else, and those who excel in these fields are given greater status. Creative artists, social activists, and humanistic theorists are often marginalized.
Robertson: In its 2022 Declaration of Modern Humanism, Humanists International affirmed:
We are convinced that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human reason, and action. We advocate the application of science and free inquiry to these problems, remembering that while science provides the means, human values must define the ends. We seek to use science and technology to enhance human well-being, and never callously or destructively.
The reference to human values in this quote refers the worth and dignity of the individual. In my book, The Evolved Self, I argued that a function of organized religion was to constrain the self thereby ensuring that key religiously held precepts cannot be questioned. The Scientific Revolution and subsequent Enlightenment that initially occurred in Europe led to the development of modern humanism. In The Opened Mind: An application of the historical concept of openess in Education my colleagues and I argued that education is an expression of the development of the human mind that allows the individual to seek an objective stance relative to received tradition. Given that Iran is a modern theocracy, it does not surprise me that your school was constrained by what they define as received tradtion. I would be interested in hearing how you managed to survive in what I take to be a hostile environment for so long.
I graduated as a teacher in 1981 when John Dewey’s approach to education, often referred to as experiential learning or progressive education, was dominant. Dewey’s key principles included learning by doing, pragmatism – that ideas and knowledge are tools for solving practical problems, a democratic approach to education where students and teachers collaborate and learn from each other, the integration of subjects connecting different areas of knowledge, and reflective thinking in the learning process. I suspect much of this is reflected in the approach of the Peace School.
Dewey worked in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Montessori believed in a more passive role for the teacher who would act as a guide or facilitator rather than a direct instructor. She emphasized allowing children to learn independently through exploration and discovery. As you know, the Montessori classroom is highly structured with specific materials designed to promote self-directed learning in contrast with Dewey who was more flexible and less structured promoting a learning environment that encouraged social interaction and collaborative learning. Unlike Dewey, Montessori placed a strong emphasis on individual learning and development, whereas Dewey emphasized the importance of social learning. I suspect that your approach is more similar to Dewey’s in this regard.
As previously discussed, I know Carl Rogers primarily as the founder of a school of psychotherapy whose hallmark is “unconditional positive regard” for the individual. His suggestion that teachers should act as facilitators rather than traditional instructors and that learning be self-directed seems to channel Montessori. His emphasis on emotional and social growth may be an extension of Dewey, but I think he would have emphasized the interpersonal relationship between the teacher as facilitator and student to a greater degree.
As discussed, I am familiar with Paulo Freire with respect to adult education, and I am still unsure as to how he would be applied to the age group on which the Peace School focuses. I understand that Freire would criticize Dewey for insufficiently addressing power dynamics and social inequalities but does this reference the relative powerlessness of young children or an ideological concern focusing on their families, economic class or assigned identity groups? I suspect that Freire believed Rogers approach was too individualistic failing to address the collective and societal aspects of education. If you would agree with this criticism of Rogers, then I would be interested in know how the humanist Peace School addresses the collective and societal aspects of education that so concerned Freire.
Is your concern that Montessori, and I presume Dewey as well, were “cognitivist” based on their measuring progress in some ways similar to Freire’s description of schools as “banks.” This is where I think we are in this enlightening discussion. I have made some guesses here, and I look forward to your response.
Yousefi: I value your valuable insights, and to learn about your views as a global expert. I am also excited to share some of my experiences working directly with students in a humanistic school. I believe that with your guidance and support, this approach can become an effective model for all schools.
I agree with you that John Dewey made a significant impact on democratic education. He was a philosopher who shifted educational philosophy in favor of students and human experiences. For those of us working in humanistic psychology or education, Dewey’s views are a foundational reference. Many humanistic psychologists consider Dewey’s ideas as a basis for their work, and his perspectives are often seen as more modern and innovative compared to those of Montessori. What sets Dewey apart from other educational theorists before and during his time is his focus on individual students’ experiences in the learning process. He believed in addressing the needs and desires of students and designing educational programs based on their experiences. This approach was seen as revolutionary in the early 20th century.
However, any theory must evolve through direct practice and engagement with its audience. I believe that Paulo Freire built on Dewey’s ideas and expanded them, creating opportunities for more teachers in various countries to use his educational approaches. Many educators took from Dewey the emphasis on focusing on the student’s own education—understanding what each student needs in their personal world and classroom environment and helping them engage in their learning journey. However, Dewey’s views paid less attention to the broader society in which students live. He primarily focused on students within school classrooms, mainly emphasizing academic learning.
But every student needs to connect with other groups and participate in building a better world. Focusing solely on classroom needs is important but not sufficient. Freire and others like me, who have lived in countries under controlling regimes, see a greater need for approaches that include social critique. For example, I grew up in a country where controlling systems have limited social growth for centuries, dictating learning according to the will of those in power. In educational systems where everything is predetermined for students, even the specific texts they must learn, how can we focus only on the individual education of the student? Sometimes, teaching the same lessons or conveying the same pre-set knowledge is a mistake—it perpetuates oppression, dominance, and control-driven thinking.
Freire came from societies where military and controlling regimes dominated education. How can an educator or educational planner in the Middle East, China, Russia, Iran, and large parts of Africa, Asia, or Latin America ignore social inequalities and focus solely on individual education? If education cannot change societal structures for the common good, how can we call it sustainable? While Dewey was interested in democracy and social justice, he did not see education as a tool for radical social change like Freire did.
Many education experts in Europe and America accept that Freire’s views can be effective in non-democratic countries. However, these same experts often take a critical stance on Freire’s perspectives when applied to Europe or America.
Freire believes that relativism or absolute individualism in Western educational systems can lead to inaction or a lack of commitment, especially in social and political contexts where the world urgently needs fundamental changes. According to Freire, education cannot and should not be neutral; it must be a political and moral act that seeks liberation and social justice. He argues that education should consciously and purposefully critique oppressive and unequal structures.
At this stage, some Western experts, particularly in North America, argue that they do not face issues of inequality or social oppression and that students do not need to be sensitized to the needs of the global community. However, many global planners or even those in developing countries are Western experts. Many global needs are managed by Western professionals, and it is crucial that Western graduates take action to reduce social inequalities. Graduates of Western schools and universities need to become familiar with the needs of the global community and consider the interests of the Global South in their planning.
I believe that the West has prominent architects and designers in shaping democratic structures, and experts strive to uphold democratic laws in their national frameworks. But we often forget that students must also learn the principles and foundations of democracy in schools, experience democratic behaviors, and even practice the principles of participatory education. When students become familiar with these principles, they can help create a fairer society for all humanity.
Additionally, with the growing immigrant population in the U.S. and Canada, many students who migrate with their families have no experience with democratic behavior. They do not experience democracy in American and Canadian schools, nor do they practice it at home. Therefore, it is necessary to activate democratic schools to provide these experiences for students. Every student should learn participatory methods, feel responsible toward their community, critique society, examine the current situation, and think about the desired future. They should be able to generate ideas and have aspirations for a better world. Schools can equip and empower students with these abilities.
On the other hand, some Western experts mistakenly believe that children in Western countries are not oppressed and consider the general welfare index as the most important indicator of a fair situation for children. However, UNICEF reports indicate that the overall condition of children globally is not good. In Europe and America, many children spend long hours alone, without caregivers to support them, and face many dangers. The issue of sexual abuse of children in the West is troubling, as highlighted in reports like the Rights of Children report on violence against children in Canada. UNICEF and many NGOs report that children everywhere are subjected to violence and domestic abuse. Often, neglect and abandonment by parents also constitute a form of violence against children, as noted in Protect Children Canada’s report on crime data during the pandemic. Juvenile delinquency is on the rise in all countries, and the issue of malnutrition and the lack of micronutrients equally threaten children in the West and East, as shown in Canadian child nutrition statistics. In many countries, behaviorist-dominated education systems have stripped students of any choice.
Therefore, I think Freire’s views can help us sensitize students to their own societies and the citizens of the world, instilling in them a sense of responsibility. I believe it is essential to practice love, empathy, compassion, and support for others with students.
In my view, the humanistic movement of this century must fill the gap of neglecting human connections. While it is important to think of oneself and one’s needs, it is not enough. We need to live together on this planet with love. I believe humanistic schools should lead the way in this endeavor, and I am eager to contribute alongside you on this path.
Robertson: Thank you for completing this interview Nasser. As is my usual practice, I will leave you with the last word. This has been an unusual interview with lengthy questions and answers, so I will have to give consideration to the best format to use in publishing it on our website. I would like members of the New Enlightenment community to have the opportunity to comment and/or ask questions. You will have the opportunity to respond should that happen.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Blake Touchet
NCSE’s Wendy Johnson leads a session on the scientific literacy tool DataWISE.
At the 2024 National Association of Biology Teachers conference in Anaheim, California, the theme of NCSE’s many sessions was storytelling: How do we help students make sense of the stories being told with data and data visualizations? How can we use storytelling and games to engage students in learning about evolution and ecology? How can teachers use storylines in their classrooms every day to make climate change relevant to students? These were just a few of the questions that we asked and attempted to answer with this year’s conference participants. This annual conference brings together educators, researchers, and practitioners in the life sciences to share lessons, strategies, and innovations in the field of biology education.
NCSE’s first session was a three-hour workshop titled “Scientific Literacy in the Digital Age of Misinformation” in which Science Education Specialist Wendy Johnson and Interim Director of Education Blake Touchet introduced participants to our new scientific media literacy tool DataWISE. This tool, which has generated enthusiastic responses from teachers as we’ve begun to unveil it at professional development opportunities around the country, is grounded in the idea that students need a systematic, scaffolded approach to determine the validity and reliability of data-based claims. In other words, this is a tool to build students’ capacity to determine if the stories they are being told by data and data visualizations are trustworthy. After introducing the components of the tool (Is this Worthy of attention? Inspect the data. Does this make Sense? What Emotion is activated?) participants practiced applying the tool using our newly developed activities. They ended the session by planning out ways to incorporate the tool and activities into their regular classroom practice.
Our next session was the annual Evolution Symposium co-hosted by NCSE and NABT. This year’s event featured Katie Hinde, Associate Professor at Arizona State University’s School of Human Evolution and Social Change, and founder of March Mammal Madness. Hinde shared research linking human’s evolutionary history of sociality and collective storytelling to the success of the March Mammal Madness tournament which has helped hundreds of thousands of students across the country engage in biology, evolution, and ecology since its inception in 2013. Following Hinde’s presentation, Touchet and Teacher Ambassador Jeff Grant walked participants through NCSE’s lesson It’s Time to Lose the Ladder which guides students through the concept of convergent evolution and the creation of phylogenetic trees.
Katie Hinde leads a session at the Evolution Symposium.
The NCSE team wrapped up with two final sessions focusing on our newly developed Climate Change Story Shorts. One session led by Johnson and Touchet discussed teachers’ experiences with Next Generation Science Standards-aligned storylines. During this session, participants shared their successes and struggles with using storylines and Johnson and Touchet shared how NCSE has used research and teacher feedback to craft short, flexible, easy-to-use Story Shorts that maximize the benefits of this curricular approach while minimizing the barriers that teachers have experienced when implementing them. The last session allowed participants to experience NCSE’s new Story Short Sustainable Climate Solutions from a student’s perspective as they learn about the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, climate solutions, and how we can work to achieve net zero carbon emissions.
NCSE team members also attended the Honors Luncheon where Teacher Ambassadors Jennifer Broo and David Amidon received awards. Broo was named this year’s Outstanding Biology Teacher for the state of Ohio, and Amidon was awarded the Ecology and Environmental Science Teaching Award. The Evolution Education Award, co-sponsored by NCSE and BSCS Science Learning was also presented to Briana Pobiner. A former recipient of NCSE’s Friend of Darwin Award, Pobiner is a paleoanthropologist who leads the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program and has engaged in evolution education research and programming for K-12 classrooms.
As in past years, a follow-up to the Evolution Symposium with Katie Hinde will take place in February during NCSE and NABT’s joint Darwin Day webinar. Be on the lookout for more information soon to celebrate Darwin Day with the kick-off of the 2025 March Mammal Madness tournament!
Short Bio
Blake Touchet is NCSE’s Interim Director of Science Education.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
The Texas state board of education voted 8-7 on November 22, 2024, to approve Bluebonnet Learning, “a controversial public school curriculum for K-5 students that largely centers around Christianity,” accordingto the Houston Chronicle (November 22, 2004).
Of particular concern, as NCSE previously reported, was a kindergarten unit entitled “Exploring Art” (PDF), which devotes a lesson to the creation and flood stories from Genesis. Creation stories from the ancient Maya, Aztec, and Greek cultures are mentioned but not described in detail, while four pages, including artwork, are devoted to Genesis. Moreover, students are expected to answer questions about the details of the events recounted in Genesis.
In a report (PDF) prepared for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, David R. Brockman, a religious studies scholar and Christian theologian, wrote, “It is difficult to avoid concluding that this … unit is being used as an excuse to smuggle in what is effectively Bible study,” and noted that “kindergarteners are likely to come away … believing that the biblical story is the creation account and that it alone is worth their attention” (emphasis in original).
The curriculum, including “Exploring Art” (PDF), was subsequently revised in response to public comments, but the concerns of its critics were not allayed. At a board meeting on November 18, 2024, Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, criticized the lessons dealing with religion as not only unduly emphasizing Christianity but also riddled with inaccuracies, according to the Houston Chronicle (November 19, 2024).
The Texas Freedom Network observed (November 22, 2024) that the board voted to adopt the curriculum “despite national media attention, warnings from religious studies experts, and overwhelming negative feedback from constituents,” adding, “Once again, they chose politics over what’s best for students, promoting an evangelical Christian religious perspective and undermining the freedom of families to direct the religious education of their own children.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued (November 22, 2024) a statement urging all Texas school districts not to adopt the curriculum, adding, “If families learn their public schools are using this curriculum, or introducing any coercive religious lessons in their classrooms, we encourage them to contact us at au.org. Our attorneys are standing by and ready to defend their religious freedom.”
The Bluebonnet Learning curriculum for K-5 Reading Language Arts will be available for use in Texas’s classrooms starting in the 2025-2026 school year; although there is no requirement to use the materials, there are financial incentives for doing so.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
NCSE is seeking to hire a full-time science education specialist to conduct professional learning for science teachers and engage in related research and engagement with the science education community. This is a full-time and fully remote position, with extensive travel required, beginning no later than July 2025; applications will be accepted until December 20, 2024. Further information about duties, qualifications, salary, and the application process is available from NCSE’s job page.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE is proud to be the organizational recipient of the Outstanding Service to Environmental Education award for 2024. Conferred by the North American Association for Environmental Education, the award recognizes exceptional contributions and services to advancing environmental education — climate education in particular, in NCSE’s case. NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch accepted the award on behalf of NCSE on November 9, 2024, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, during the awards banquet of NAAEE’s annual conference.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch.
Writing in the Northeast Times (October 15, 2024), which serves the northeast Philadelphia community, NCSE deputy director Glenn Branch congratulated Pennsylvania for adopting, in 2022, a new set of state science standards that includes climate change at the middle and high school level (as NCSE previously reported). The new standards take effect in 2025.
“But having taken such a huge step forward, Pennsylvania must not falter,” he warned. “In particular, it will be necessary to equip teachers to meet the increased demands of the new standards. A national survey conducted by the National Center for Science Education and Pennsylvania State University revealed a striking lack of preparation for teaching climate change: more than half of the teachers surveyed reported having never taken a course in college that devoted as much as a single class session to the topic.” (The survey is described in detail in “Mixed Messages” (PDF)).
Observing that Pennsylvania’s climate is already changing, Branch concluded, “It is encouraging that science education in Pennsylvania is on its way to changing as well. But it is necessary for the state to follow through on its commitment to improve science education by ensuring that its teachers are ready, willing, and able to teach climate change effectively.”
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
Michael Ruse with his pet, McGruff, in 2020. By Lizzie Ruse, CC BY-SA 4.0.
The influential historian and philosopher of biology Michael Ruse died on November 1, 2024, at the age of 84, according to the obituary in The Globe and Mail (November 4, 2024). Ruse was one of the founders of the field of philosophy of biology: the first of his more than 70 books was the seminal The Philosophy of Biology (1970) and he founded the field’s first journal, Biology and Philosophy. He was especially interested in evolutionary biology, which he discussed in books such as The Darwinian Revolution (1979, second edition 1999), Darwinism Defended (1982), Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology (1996), and Darwin and Design (2003), among others.
Owing to his scholarly interest in evolutionary biology, Ruse was recruited by the plaintiffs in McLean v. Arkansas, a legal case challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas’s 1981 equal time for creation science law. His testimony that creation science failed to qualify as scientific was central to the favorable ruling, although it excited considerable controversy among his fellow philosophers. Ruse continued to discuss and criticize creationism, editing a collection of essays related to McLean, But Is It Science? (1988, second edition coedited with Robert T. Pennock 2008) as well as writing The Evolution Wars (2000), and The Evolution/Creation Struggle (2005). Raised as a Quaker, Ruse was not a believer, but he sought to promote peaceful coexistence of science and religion, articulating his views in books such as Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? (2001) and Science and Spirituality (2010). Despite his differences with his intellectual foes, Ruse was famed for his friendliness and conviviality. Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University, president of NCSE’s board of directors, commented, “I respected him as a philosopher who genuinely understood science and more importantly loved him as a friend.”
Ruse was born in Birmingham, England, on June 21, 1940. He earned his B.A. in philosophy and mathematics from the University of Bristol in 1962, his M.A. in philosophy from McMaster University in 1964, and his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Bristol in 1970. He spent his career at the University of Guelph from 1965 to 2000 and then at Florida State University, where he was the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy from 2000 onward. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the Gifford Lecturers in Natural Theology for 2001, and the recipient of at least four honorary doctoral degrees.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Balek Touchet
The National Center for Science Education in collaboration with the University of Georgia Marine Extension and Georgia Sea Grant led a successful four-day workshop on coastal resilience for teachers from across the Southeast. This unique workshop, called My COAST (Climate-Oriented Authentic Science Teaching), brought together elementary, middle, and high school science teachers from Georgia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Virginia to learn about climate change and its impact on coastal ecosystems.
My COAST featured morning field trips where teachers learned firsthand about Georgia’s unique geography and ecosystems from local experts. These trips were followed by afternoon activities in which the teachers had the opportunity to learn about NCSE’s lesson materials and strategies for identifying and resolving misconceptions and misinformation about climate change.
During the field trips, the teachers explored barrier islands such as Wassaw Island and Tybee Island and went trawling on a research vessel to learn about the estuarine animals that live along the coast. Guest speakers Meagan Jones, a Coastal Community Resilience Specialist with the University of Georgia Marine Extension, and J. Marshall Shepherd, an award-winning meteorologist and member of NCSE’s board, also contributed to the teachers’ experience during separate “lunch and learn” sessions. Jones discussed her research relating to coastal resilience, while Shepherd shared his expertise regarding climate change from a meteorological perspective.
NCSE’s Executive Director Amanda L. Townley and Interim Director of Education Blake Touchet helped teachers to bridge the gap between field and classroom by sharing lessons and strategies developed by NCSE. Teachers learned about common tactics of climate change denial, applied NCSE’s new data and media literacy tool DataWISE, and participated in lessons from NCSE’s new Story Shorts Sustainable Climate Solutions and Climate Change in Your Backyard.
NCSE would like to thank all the teachers who attended as well as the University of Georgia Marine Extension, Georgia Sea Grant, J. Marshall Shepherd, and Meagan Jones for making this event such a great, collaborative learning experience. Be on the lookout for our next MyCOAST event in the Spring of 2025 in Florida!
Short Bio
Blake Touchet is NCSE’s Interim Director of Science Education.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
In a statement (PDF) issued on October 16, 2024, the National Association of Biology Teachers expressed alarm at “recent efforts to ban ‘controversial’ science concepts from textbooks and curricula,” explaining that “Topics on climate change, reproduction, vaccines, and other evidence-based concepts that have been deemed “controversial” by local school boards and state officials are being excised from state-approved resources with a precision that suggests political interests, and not science education, are motivating factors.”
NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley, who signed the statement in her capacity as NABT President for 2024, explained that the statement was prompted by incidents including the Florida Department of Education’s demanding the removal of references to climate change from a number of science textbooks used in the state (as NCSE previously reported). “NABT and NCSE stand together in deploring policies and practices that impede science teachers from teaching accurate and up-to-date science free of ideological interference,” she commented.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
J. Marshall Shepherd of the University of Georgia, a member of NCSE’s board of directors, is to receive the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications (in the Research Scientist: Later Career category) for 2024 from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine in partnership with Schmidt Science.
“J. Marshall Shepherd is a skilled communicator who eloquently explains complicated scientific concepts in meteorology and climate science. His engaging speaking style, use of relatable analogies, and ability to combine important scientific issues with personal reflection and humor make his work especially approachable and unique,” according to a press release from the National Academies.
“If experts are not engaged, others will fill voids with agendas and misinformation,” Shepherd commented. “I view broader science engagement as fundamental to my scholarship. To be recognized with this honor is both humbling and rewarding at the same time. I do this because of my passion and the need, but it is nice to be recognized.”
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Amanda L. Townley
I wanted to write something my kids could read … and their peers could read. I wrote it for people who may not otherwise pick up an evolution textbook.” — Chakrabarty on Explaining Life Through Evolution.
Prosanta Chakrabarty is the George H. Lowery Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Curator of Fishes at the Museum of Natural Science at Louisiana State University and a member of the NCSE Board of Directors. He is a TED Senior Fellow, an Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a Fulbright Distinguished Chair, and a National Geographic Certified Educator. He is also the author of a recent popular book, Explaining Life Through Evolution (MIT Press, 2023).
Chakrabarty was interviewed recently by NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley.
Short Bio
Amanda L. Townley is the executive director of NCSE.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
“[This book] is an excellent primer for those who would like to educate themselves on the complex historical interplay between history, science, and racial justice,” our reviewer writes.
“While bad (e.g., specious) science has historically oppressed people, good (e.g., robust) science can actually liberate them” (page 183). This passage, from the conclusion of Integrating Racial Justice into Your High-School Biology Classroom, succinctly summarizes the book’s thrust.
David Upegui (a science teacher) and David E. Fastovsky (a paleontologist) open their book with the argument that evolutionary theory is the best place to integrate racial justice into the K–12 curriculum. High school students are at the right developmental stage to discuss racial justice, and the history of evolution provides plenty of examples of specious and misappropriated uses of science for racial discrimination and oppression as well as the opportunity to highlight the nature of science and its self-correcting properties. They use the frameworks laid by critical scholars such as Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, and Derek Hodson to argue that the purpose of general education, and science education specifically, is for students to use literacy for empowerment and liberation. By gaining an understanding of what modern evolutionary theory says about humanity’s diversity and interconnectedness, students can come to see how bad actors in the past relied on ignorant or biased assumptions to create false racial categories and stereotypes.
Through a series of suggested activities with accompanying articles and videos featuring scientists such as Joseph L. Graves Jr. (a member of NCSE’s board of directors) and Agustin Fuentes, Upegui and Fastovsky demonstrate ways in which these insights may be discussed in connection with teaching about evolution. These lessons also highlight the interdisciplinary nature of racial justice by combining the nature of science, specific evolutionary content, and an investigation of the historical, political, and economic factors that contributed to the past and present marginalization of certain groups in the United States and around the world.
The second half of the book provides teachers who choose to use these lessons an in-depth understanding of the history of racial oppression in the United States from the 17th century to the present, the history of “scientific” racism used to justify the trans-Atlantic slave trade and Jim Crow laws, the history of the development of evolutionary theory from before Darwin up to the present, and an overview of pedagogical practices for including racial justice in biology classes. While not all teachers will be willing or able to use the lessons in this book in their classrooms, it is an excellent primer for those who would like to educate themselves on the complex historical interplay between history, science, and racial justice.
Short Bio
Blake Touchet is NCSE’s Interim Director of Science Education.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE is pleased to announce that the latest issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education — volume 44, number 4 — is now available online.
Featured are Paul Oh’s description of NCSE’s new DataWISE resources; Glenn Branch’s discussion of ways to support climate change education through state legislation; Wendy Johnson’s report on NCSE’s new Climate Change Story Shorts; Glenn Branch’s chronicle of the new cryptocreationist law in West Virginia; and Blake Touchet’s review of David Upegui and David E. Fastovsky’s Integrating Racial Justice into Your High-School Biology Classroom: Using Evolution to Understand Diversity.
The entire issue is freely available (PDF) on NCSE’s website, as are select articles. Publication of RNCSE is made possible thanks to the generous donations of people like you!
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
So you want to help to improve climate change education. Good for you!
Climate change education is a critical component of any plan for responding to the disruptions caused by a warming climate. Today’s students will spend the rest of their lives on a hotter planet, mainly owing to the actions—and inactions—of their elders, and they need to be prepared with appropriate knowledge and know-how. And yet climate change education in the United States is often far from adequate.
If you think that suitable legislation might be the remedy, you’re not alone. In the last five years, by my count, no fewer than 90 measures aimed at supporting climate change education have been introduced in the legislatures of 21 states across the country. I interviewed eight of their sponsors by phone or email, and here’s what I learned that might help you, as a citizen concerned about the climate crisis, to support the introduction, passage, and enactment of such legislation in your state.
Seek sponsors who recognize the importance of the issue
Two of the legislators, James Talarico in Texas and Christine Palm in Connecticut, are former teachers themselves, so they didn’t have to be convinced of the importance of preparing students.
“Education is the first step in helping create the leaders of tomorrow who will need to tackle this issue head-on,” Talarico told me. “The first step to solving a crisis as complex and existential as climate change is through education.”
Harness the energy and enthusiasm of youth activists
Wendy Thomas in New Hampshire was already concerned about climate change, but it was youth activists from 350nh who convinced her to introduce her resolution supporting climate change education. Youth-led and youth-oriented climate activist groups, including Ten Strands in California, Green Eco Warriors in Connecticut, and Climate Generation in Minnesota, led the support for the measures in their states.
Emphasize the injustice of not providing climate change education
“Disadvantaged communities throughout the state … are likely to experience the first and worst climate impacts,” even while they have benefited the least from the activities that cause climate change, Andrew Gounardes in New York told me. “We have an obligation to ensure our youngest and most vulnerable community members gain the knowledge and skills to adapt to a rapidly changing world.”
Remember that politics is the art of the possible
Luz Rivas’s bill, which was enacted in 2023, mandated the teaching of climate change in California’s public schools, but a previous version would also have required climate change to be a mandatory topic of study in high school. Why the retreat from the previous version? Rivas explained that California’s schools were under so much stress owing to the COVID-19 pandemic that she decided not to insist on the more ambitious provision.
Expect political partisanship to be a barrier
Juan Mendez in New Mexico noted, “Political partisan- ship overrides what needs to be done” to improve climate change education.
Chris Larson in Wisconsin similarly reported, “Even critical issues that should be bipartisan are halted due to partisanship.”
Larson added that he wished that he had worked more with the business community, which might have enabled his climate change education bill “to garner Republican legislative support.”
Communicate with your legislators
All the legislators I interviewed agreed that people who want to support measures like theirs can do a lot to help. Palm in Connecticut emphasized that state government is “the sweet spot” for action on climate change: big enough to make a difference but small enough to be approachable. Simply letting your legislators know that you support climate change education, or a particular measure intended to improve it, can go a long way in motivating them.
Make your support for climate change education visible
Testifying in legislative committee hearings can make a huge difference; even attending hearings without testifying to show your support can be helpful, Nicole Mitchell in Minnesota told me. Mendez in New Mexico stressed the importance of storytelling in any communication with legis- lators in order to capture their attention and their emotion. “I can be ignored,” he acknowledged, “but real people who tell their stories are harder to ignore.”
Be persistent
Only two of the legislators I interviewed—Rivas in California and Palm in Connecticut — have enjoyed success with their measures so far, and neither of them succeeded on their first try. Indeed, it took four years and two legislative sessions for Palm’s proposed statutory requirement to teach climate change in Connecticut’s public schools to pass. Talarico in Texas expressed his resolve: “Despite our climate education bill not passing, I’m not giving up — and neither should you.”
Climate change education is popular: about 75% of Americans agree that schools should teach about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming. The challenge is to channel the public’s abstract support for climate change education into specific and implementable legislation that will make a real difference in the classroom. That’s how legislators and their constituents can help to equip today’s students to cope with the challenges of the warmer world they will inherit.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Rakshit Sharma began his journalism career while in college, connecting with Conatus News. After studying history and eventually dropping out, he pursued journalism and now works at the Hindustan Times, covering agriculture, education, and public health in Ludhiana, Punjab. His career has shifted ideologically, moving from atheism and leftist views to embracing family values and a more spiritual identity. Sharma acknowledges the challenges of maintaining objectivity in journalism, especially in an agrarian region like Punjab.
Keywords: agrarian society in Punjab news, Conatus News focus on politics, family as societal building block, Hindustan Times editorial standards, Indian journalism diploma necessity, objective journalism in India, Punjab agricultural controversies coverage.
Post-Conatus News Meander 4: Rakshit Sharma
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your background and moving forward since Conatus New?
Rakshit Sharma: Yes. So, I was in my first year of college. We have three years for a typical graduation. I was in either part 1 or part 2 when I connected with the people at Conatus News.
I went on to study history after that, but something happened, and I dropped out. One thing led to another, and I eventually got into journalism. I am working with one of India’s leading newspapers, the Hindustan Times.
I’m currently working with the Hindustan Times. I’m based in Ludhiana, Punjab, and I cover agriculture, education, and public health. Conatus News played an important role in shaping my career in its own way.
That was my first real interaction with journalism.
Jacobsen: You studied journalism formally, right? Not everyone does that. You were a social media officer at Uncommon Ground Media, a journalism intern at News Now, and a former sub-editor at First Post. There is a clear progression; working at a small progressive activist outlet helped you in the long run.
Sharma: Yes. The thing is, you don’t have to study journalism to become a journalist here in India. I suppose that’s true outside India as well. However, it would help if you typically had a diploma to secure a job with a reputable media house.
We have an institute called the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), which is ranked as the top journalism school in India. I didn’t go there to learn journalism; I went there to get a diploma so I could get a good job, and I’m doing well.
It was a practical orientation. Also, I wanted to mention that I’ve gone through a lot of change over the years on both personal and ideological fronts.
Back then, I identified as an atheist—left of center, no, actually just left. Now, I’ve developed some spiritual beliefs. I wouldn’t say I’m fully religious, nor am I a practicing Hindu. Still, I do now feel a connection with my religious identity.
Jacobsen: Does this change come more from belief, practice, or both for you?
Sharma: For me, it’s mostly belief. Maybe it’s part of personal growth, or as some would call it, the dynamic of synthesis, antithesis, and synthesis. My position in 2017 was quite different—it was radical. Then, my thoughts began to evolve, and it’s been a process ever since. : I’m still undergoing a lot of changes.
Jacobsen: What would you argue with people about?
Sharma: I’m still trying to figure that out.
Jacobsen: What was the feeling as you transitioned from center-left to a different political stance and from atheism to a more spiritual belief structure?
Sharma: How do I put it, I’ve grown to believe that family is important. I see people on the left, those who identify as leftists, and I’m afraid I have to disagree with their position on family and related matters. I believe family is the building block of society.
So the positions that the left usually take on a lot of issues, in the long run, involve doing away with family as the basic unit of society. That is something we want in the short term.
Jacobsen: It’s a strange thing. Most religions, outside of aberrations in the interpretation of holy scripture and belief, strongly emphasize the ethical value of family as a fundamental unit in society. Suppose you look at the United Nations, the largest bureaucratic, essentially secular structure. In that case, they also stipulate in their founding documents that the family is the fundamental group unit of society.
So whether it’s the largest bureaucratic secular organization in the world or the major religions, or the religions that have a significant following globally, their interpretation is that family is a fundamental group unit. So you’re arguing more about left-wing political and social thought strands. Is that accurate?
Sharma: Yes.
Jacobsen: Now that you’re working at Hindustan Times, how do you characterize the kind of reportage, the editorial standards, the stories you pick, those you reject, and so on?
Sharma: We have been trained in what I would call fairly objective journalism, but it’s hard not to let your personal bias slip into your reports. We mostly do reports, but we also do analysis pieces around elections.
At times, the kind of questions you ask and the kind of stories you find interesting seem to come from your biases or preconceived notions. It’s always a struggle. You always remind yourself that you can’t ignore a point of view or a certain way of looking at things just because you have certain preconceived ideas. Also, we have good people leading us here at the bureau, so they ensure that we don’t fall into that trap.
Jacobsen: What would you say has been your most popular article? And what has been the most difficult one to write?
Sharma: A couple of days ago, there was a controversy here in Punjab. There’s a variety of paddy called PR 126. It was supposed to be a short-duration variety with good quality. But then something happened. Local private companies sold their hybrids, claiming it to be PR 126, and it didn’t yield the same results that the university, which developed the variety, had promised.
So there was a lot of trouble a couple of weeks ago. It’s harvest season here in Punjab. The farmers are taking their produce to the markets. The millers, who are supposed to take in the paddy and give rice to the public distribution system here in Punjab, refused to lift the paddy. The farmers were coming to the market, dumping the product. Then, no place was left for other farmers to bring in their produce because the paddy wasn’t being lifted.
They’re also trying to bring it to the market. So, the local government asked Punjab Agricultural University, a research university here in Ludhiana, to conduct milling trials for that particular variety. It turned out that many hybrids being sold in the market didn’t yield good results and had a lot of breakage.
So the rice grain, for it to be considered good quality, should have no more than 25% breakage. Two-thirds of it should be full grain after it’s been milled. It turned out that the breakage was higher during the university’s milling trials. I got wind of this and spoke to the vice-chancellor. He shared all the details with me, and I published the story. The report still needed to be beneficially released; they were supposed to submit it by the end of the season, so it created quite a stir. I told the officials they should have been more cautious. I kept the results private after the final report was out, but that was the situation. That’s fine. I keep checking on these things. We’ve got a couple of minutes left.
Jacobsen: As a Canadian, I’ve noticed that the British news style differs slightly from how we orient ourselves here. When I did journalism in the UK, I found that the way news is prioritized there is a little different from how it’s handled in Canada. I was curious about your experience, particularly covering farming and universities. How do you find the character of news and opinion pieces in India, and how does it compare with the British style? Where do you see differences, and where do you see similarities?
Sharma: So, at Conatus News, we were a niche website. We focused mainly on politics, extremism, and radical Islam—our main topics. But here at Hindustan Times, we focus on stories that resonate with the masses. Punjab is an agrarian society, so agriculture is a big news item here. Anything connected to agriculture has new value in Punjab. Also, stories about center-province relationships and environmental issues are significant here, especially because Punjab is sensitive. At Conatus News, we didn’t focus on those areas. We were concerned with entirely different topics.
Jacobsen: Again, thank you so much for this interview, Rakshit. What was it–about six or seven years later?
Jacobsen: Yes, I really appreciate it. It was good to catch up.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 8). Post-Conatus News Meander 4: Rakshit Sharma’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Post-Conatus News Meander 4: Rakshit Sharma’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
Wendy Johnson points at a graph (see below) depicting the average height of human males around the world. Johnson, an NCSE Science Education Specialist, can hardly contain her astonishment at the visual discrepancy between the figure of the Dutchman at 6’0” tall and the Indonesian man at 5’2” tall. The teachers she shares it with find it almost comical. But students could be fooled into thinking that Indonesian people are unusually small by the poorly designed scale for the graph’s Y-axis and disproportionate graphical representation of the male figures.
More insidious is an example she shares from the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board (below, right) that suggests that increased life expectancy and decreased poverty are the direct results of increasing global oil and gas consumption.
These kinds of graphs can be hard for adults to analyze with a critical eye. For young people, bombarded by information that they often accept or reject in the blink of an eye, it can be nearly impossible.
To help students become more information literate when confronting data representations like these, NCSE has launched a set of resources under the rubric DataWISE. Given a claim presented with accompanying data, students use the DataWISE tool to ask themselves a series of questions to judge the source, pur- pose, presentation, and cogency of the claim and evidence. They start with questions that allow them to determine whether the claim is Worthy of their attention, then Inspect the data, ask whether the interpretation of the data and the conclusions make Sense, and finally pay close attention to the Emotions elicited by the claim and data presented.
DataWISE is used in several of NCSE’s new Story Shorts(modular standards-aligned curricular units). In addition, the DataWISE resource on the NCSE website also includes a few standalone activities that teachers have found helpful.
According to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, the world is facing an “explosion of misinformation and disinformation that has weakened public deliberation and undermined the public’s confidence in science.” Teachers are increasingly being called upon to help students decipher fact from fiction in an unbiased and non-political fashion in the classroom. The DataWISE tool is NCSE’s answer to that need.
NCSE has already led several workshops in Michigan, Colorado, Alabama, and North Dakota, where teachers actively explored the DataWISE tool and associated activities. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.
This comes as no surprise to Johnson, a former high school science teacher. She knows firsthand the emphasis placed on graphs and graphing in the science classroom. Yet she also knows that graphing is usually taught as a skill using broad brushstrokes, almost always divorced from critical media analysis. “DataWISE really just slows you down and makes the steps of analysis really clear to students,” Johnson explains.
Providing this kind of tool to teachers and, by extension, their students makes great sense given NCSE’s sustained efforts over the past several years to shine a light on evolution and climate change misinformation, disinformation, and misconceptions. Graphs and infographics, like the one from the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board, can easily be used to mislead, obfuscate, and confuse. Science teachers, Johnson says, are more likely to tackle misconceptions with their students if they can tie them into existing curriculum. Graphs and graphing provide a perfect medium.
This has been borne out during the NCSE-led workshops for teachers. “I have learned so much that can be applied to my class and my curriculum,” remarked one teacher who attended a workshop led by Johnson in North Dakota. Another said, “Bias in data presentation is part of my curriculum so this session was very helpful.”
More science specific
For the past few years, NCSE has been using other media literacy tools to help students critically analyze information, many of which have colorful acronyms. For example, one developed by librarians at Chico State University in California is called the CRAAP (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose) Test and is used to check the reliability of sources. FABLE (Find, Analyze, Bias, Look, and Exert) is another that focuses on logical fallacies. Though helpful, these tools tend to focus on media literacy—the reliability and trustworthiness of online sources, for instance—but don’t always get to the heart of inquiry-based scientific practice, namely, closely examining data and determining whether the data can support whatever claim is being made. Hence the NCSE Supporting Teachers team came up with DataWISE, which like the CRAAP Test and FABLE allows students to analyze the origin of information, but also prompts them to analyze the information itself.
“DataWISE is one way to help students internalize the question they should always be asking of themselves in science, and that is: ‘Does the evidence support the claim?’” Johnson explains.
Using this tool and attaining information literacy is critical for students as they grapple with their understanding of the nature of science. Typically, science teachers focus on the “I” (Inspect) and the “S” (does it make Sense) in DataWISE. However, the “Worthiness” of a claim is critical in this age of social media-driven news and information, while the “Emotions” piece is often overlooked but can blind both the conveyor and recipient of data to biases that affect interpretation.
The pandemic and trust in science
Of course, in the not-so-distant past, we vividly felt the need to be able to interpret scientific data presented in all kinds of graphical ways. During the COVID-19 pan- demic, the public was bombarded with the latest science updates and health information, often in the form of charts, infographics, and tables.
“The World Health Organization says that an infodemic accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic,” Johnson notes. “There was so much information, including false and misleading information, that people didn’t know what to believe, and some gave up trying to make sense of it all because they were overwhelmed. And, of course, that is not what we want as science educators.” In the meantime, the NCSE Supporting Teachers team continues to work with teachers to help them figure out how best to integrate the important DataWISE tool into their curriculum. And as teachers use the tool more, they’ve begun to provide feedback on where it fits best for them, how they are employing it, and how they’re tailoring it to fit their needs.
NCSE has purposely developed the DataWISE tool to be flexible and adaptable. In a rapidly changing, information- and misinformation-dense world, the hope is that DataWISE will keep teachers one step ahead.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
Noting that trust in science seems to have dwindled among the American public but not as much as trust in other institutions, Flam wrote, “How do we make sense of these seemingly contradictory impulses? A study led by political scientist Jon Miller of the University of Michigan offers a compelling possibility: He and his research partners found that from 2016 to 2020, trust in science overall remained relatively steady.”
“But look deeper into the data,” she continued, “and you’ll see a shift — people grew increasingly skeptical or increasingly trusting of scientific expertise, with the middle ground hollowed out. That trend held true when the researchers sliced the data by partisanship and scientific literacy. (Democrats, Republicans and those with either low or high levels of scientific knowledge all became either more or less trusting.)”
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
“I’m tired of living through historic events.”
It’s a sentiment that resonates deeply during this time. In the past four years of American history, we’ve navigated a global pandemic, witnessed the overturn of Roe v Wade, and faced the growing rise of Christian nationalism in our government. Now, with the re-election of a president many fear will embolden religious extremism, the challenges before us feel more significant—and more urgent—than ever.
These moments test us. They demand courage and action. They also remind us of the struggles that shaped the freedoms we often take for granted. How did Americans feel during the Polio epidemic? What about the activists on the frontlines of the Civil Rights Movement or LGBTQ+ Pride protests? What courage did it take for activists to march for reproductive rights or for the Founding Fathers to envision a nation free from religious rule?
History is shaped by those who choose to act. On this Giving Tuesday, the Secular Coalition for America invites you to be a part of our generation’s own historic fight against Christian nationalism.
We can’t face this battle alone. The stakes are too high, and the forces we’re up against are well-funded and organized. That’s why we’re asking for your help. Your support allows our organization to advocate for policies that protect church-state separation and build a strong coalition of secular voices.
It’s easy to feel overwhelmed, but history reminds us that change is possible when we stand together. Decades from now, as you reflect on this era, you’ll know you were on the side of progress, fighting for an inclusive and secular America. Your contribution to SCA’s work—no matter the size—would make a huge difference.
By joining SCA and our member organizations’ advocacy work, you can help us establish a united force that will protect our secular democracy against coming threats.
Let’s make history for the right reasons. Will you join us?
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
Thanks to the hundreds of people who used our Action Alert last week to ask their House members to oppose the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act which contains a provision that could be used to target nonprofits that might have occasion to criticize the President. The Secretary of the Treasury could designate any nonprofit as a “terrorist-supporting organization” and revoke their nonprofit status. The only avenue of appeal is back to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Maybe it seems far-fetched that this could happen to an organization simply for criticizing the Administration, but retribution seems to be part of the job description for at least some of the nominees for cabinet posts so far. Congress should not approve such a threat without better safeguards for all the non-terrorist-supporting organizations.
The bill failed to pass last week because under the procedure used to bring it up for a vote, it needed a two-thirds majority and didn’t get it. However, it came back this week needing only a majority and it passed the House 219-184. Whether the Senate Democrats will bring it up during the lame duck session this year remains to be seen, but it could easily come back next year in the Republican-controlled Congress. The nonprofit community including SCA is on alert.
When I say SCA I mean the 20 nonprofit organizations that comprise our coalition. The executive directors got together last Tuesday for a post-election discussion about plans and priorities. Each organization has its own strengths and focus but we all share the common goal of protecting the rights of nonreligious Americans. We talked about the upcoming challenges and possible opportunities in the next four years and how the SCA staff, like me, can inform, organize, and lead the coalition. Generally speaking, we are planning on:
Expanding grassroots engagement: Empowering people and communities to advocate for separation of church and state in Washington and in the states.
Watching for and addressing specific legislative threats and government regulations that threaten secular governance.
Growing our reach to educate the public and policymakers about the importance and benefits of keeping religion out of government.
As it stands now SCA plans to oppose more than one of the nominees for cabinet positions in January when the new Congress convenes and confirmation hearings begin. New information will undoubtedly come out between now and then about every nominee. Experience and competency have become too much to expect for all Trump nominees, but some already have backgrounds or conflicts that go far beyond inexperience.
And perhaps the about-to-be created Department of Government Efficiency, headed up by Elon Musk, (not a real government agency, just an outside commission) will take a look at the improvements to efficiency when you nominate competent people to run the federal agencies.
Congress has about six months of work to do in December: pass the bill that sets policy and priorities for the Pentagon, pass a similar bill for all the country’s expiring agriculture programs, and fund the whole government for 2025. Plus any of a hundred other important bills left over. I’ll let you know when we need help supporting or opposing the next one coming up for a vote. Hearing from constituents is always significant to your representatives and helpful for us.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
It turns out the election wasn’t rigged after all. Apparently Democrats can’t do anything right.
Looking at the popular vote, Trump improved from 47 percent in 2020 to (when California finishes counting), 50 percent. Three people out of 100 changed from a blue shirt to a red shirt because, apparently in most cases, their economic situation is worse than they would like and worse than they remember from Trump One. (Plus a hundred other reasons.) And in Washington everything changes.
I’m trying to look on the bright side here:
President Biden got 51 percent in 2020 and that didn’t stick in 2024. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, Trump won by just one or two percent. Democratic Senate candidates won in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada, and Pennsylvania will get a Republican Senator by only half a percent. These states are not insurmountable next time. Sometime soon someone will figure out that if something like 300,000 people in the right states had voted the other way, Harris would have won. It’s really only a landslide in the Electoral College.
I think James Carville is still mostly right that “It’s the economy, stupid!” but now we need a clarification: “It’s feelings about the economy, stupid!” According to people like the Wall Street Journal, the economy can’t get much better. So in two years when the midterm elections come around and then in four years, the people who vote on their economic situation are reasonably likely to be disappointed that President Trump and the Republicans didn’t make things better and help them out.
In this election Democrats had to defend 24 Senate seats and Republicans had 10. In 2026 it’s the opposite; Democrats have 13 to defend and Republicans have 20. The House majority will be razor thin again. And the incumbent party always has problems in midterm elections.
The top Senators running to replace Mitch McConnell as majority leader have said they will keep the filibuster, which is huge for keeping bad legislation from getting through Congress. But there will be huge pressure to change that position.
That’s about it for the bright side. Trump and his allies will have many opportunities to stock the courts, including the Supreme Court, with conservative judges sympathetic to Christians feeling persecuted. They will pass tax cuts for the rich. They will cut spending on domestic programs. Deport immigrants. Turn the federal agencies into a loyalty machine. Ignore climate change. Set up J.D. Vance to run next time. It’s going to be a bleak four years.
Oh, there is one other bright spot:
Voters with no religious affiliation bucked the national trend, supporting Harris by a 45-point margin, up from Biden’s 34-point advantage four years ago. (Washington Post) I’m putting that on my business cards. (The ones for meetings with Democrats.)
The twenty SCA member organizations are already planning how to expand our efforts to mobilize and organize secular voters. We have a meeting next week of all the executive directors that we don’t normally have this time of year to strategize.
Next year on Capitol Hill we will be telling members on both sides of the aisle why bills we expect to see are harmful to the 30 percent of voters with no religious affiliation. There will be a wave of harmful regulations from federal agencies (Project 2025 comes to life) that require public comment and we will make that convenient for you through our Action Alerts. Our lobby day is March 11. We’re fighting back and we’ll need your help.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
By Steven Emmert
In a pivotal moment for our nation, we find ourselves facing the growing influence of Christian nationalism in American politics. Yesterday’s election has spotlighted the increasing threats to religious freedom, equality, and the separation of church and state—values that are foundational to our democracy. Now more than ever, we need to stand together to ensure that America remains a nation where everyone, regardless of their beliefs or non-belief, has the same rights and freedoms.
The Secular Coalition for America has always been committed to protecting the constitutional principle that keeps government and religion separate. But as we see the power of Christian nationalism gaining momentum, our work becomes more urgent. The efforts to impose a narrow religious agenda on our government threaten the rights of all Americans to live free from religious coercion.
Every donation, no matter the size, strengthens our efforts to protect the freedom of all Americans to live according to their own beliefs. A gift today will help ensure that we can continue:
Lobbying Congress and state officials to uphold church-state separation,
Providing resources and education to secular Americans and allies,
Mobilizing advocates across the country to protect secular rights, and
Building a stronger, more resilient secular community.
But to do this, we need your help. Your support is critical to bolstering our efforts at every level. You will be empowering the Secular Coalition for America to fight harder, stand taller, and push back against this growing tide of religious extremism.
Together, we can protect the rights of all Americans and preserve the promise of freedom and equality for future generations. Please, stand with us now. Your donation makes our shared vision possible.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
Imagine two people are crouched at the beginning of a track, ready to race. The starting pistol fires and they both take off. They each have an individual desire to win, but in this race only one of them has an additional driving force causing them to run faster: an angry bear. Who do you think will win?
In this imaginary scenario, the starting pistol is the polls opening, the finish line is casting your vote, and the racers are secular and religious citizens. Election day is fast approaching, which means if you haven’t already, time is running out for you to finish your individual race to the poll. I encourage you, as a secular voter, to exercise your rights and support secular values by casting your vote. If you’ve already voted, I would still encourage you to continue reading, as this article will discuss the alarming results found in this 2023 study by Sung Joon Jang and others, on a potential long standing correlation between certain aspects of religiosity and civic engagement. In other words, whether religious people have an extra driving force–a “bear”–pushing them to vote. One which secular people lack. This study analyzed the potential positive relationship between civic engagement and two concepts referred to in the study as “transcendent accountability” and “religiopolitical awareness”.
At a basic level, it seems very logical that there would be a connection between religiosity and civic engagement. After all, religious groups offer their worshipers a shared perspective on the world, a shared set of values and beliefs, and the space necessary to celebrate those shared traits. However, it’s important to remember that religious traditions can vary wildly even from person to person within a single congregation. Some members may pay very close attention to religious texts and group leaders, while others may only attend religious services a few times a year. Additionally, some people consider themselves religious but do not claim membership of any religious group or organization. So does this “logical” connection really exist between religiosity and civic engagement?
Firstly, let’s look at some data points from past elections. According to this Pew Research Center article from January 2024, 17% of religious “nones” say they volunteered for an organization or association in the past year, while 27% of religiously affiliated people did. Additionally, only 39% of religious “nones” voted in the 2022 midterm elections as compared to 51% of religiously affiliated. Now, it is important to note that many of the data points do not show significant differences between the two groups. In fact, by some specific measurements, atheists and agnostics outperform religiously affiliated people in civic engagement (such as closely following current government affairs). The fact remains, however, that religiously affiliated people outperform religious “nones” by many metrics and there is merit in attempting to understand why.
Back to Jang’s study, I will explain the two new terms the researchers proposed in a moment, but first it’s important to discuss why the researchers felt the need to introduce these terms, specifically. As explained in the study, while a relationship between religiosity and civic engagement has long been a point of interest for sociologists, studies have been largely inconclusive in drawing a direct correlation between the two. However, many of these previous studies have looked directly at either “religious belief” and civic engagement or organizational resources provided by religious affiliation (e.g. information from pulpit, time and space to discuss politics with other people of faith) and civic engagement. This new study proposes two new lenses through which we can analyze a potential correlation between religiosity and civic engagement: transcendent accountability and religiopolitical awareness.
Transcendent accountability, as defined in the study, refers to “seeing oneself as responsible to God or a higher power for one’s impact on other people and the environment.” Essentially, this is the idea that people of faith have a belief that they are responsible to serve a higher power, which motivates them to perform their civic duties in order to aid the greater good. This can manifest as both a feeling of encouragement to help others, or as a powerful driving fear of punishment if one fails to serve the greater good sufficiently. Either force can act as a “bear” for a person of faith. Religiopolitical awareness is defined as “perceiving the influence of one’s religion and/or spirituality on one’s political views and activities.” The study found that whether considering both or just religiopolitical awareness, there is a positive relationship between religiosity and political participation including voting and other political activity.
Along with the psychological influences discussed in the study, people of faith have pre existing communities and physical locations, i.e. churches, mosques, synagogues etc., where citizens can gather and discuss political issues that motivate them to vote. Unlike most religions, there is no physical location where secular people of a specific worldview gather to discuss the state of the world and otherwise socialize. Likewise, there are very few long standing communities of secular individuals that meet and have the kinds of conversations that inspire individuals to engage in their civic duties.
In short, by every metric we are at a significant motivational disadvantage as compared to people of faith. This is why we, as secular voters, need our own imaginary “bear”. If you are a secular citizen and haven’t already voted, I hope the information in this article can serve as the “bear” you need to get out to the polls. If you already voted, I hope you spread this information to other secular citizens who might need a “bear” to motivate them to vote.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
“To govern is to choose.”
This was President John Kennedy’s succinct description of his job and the innumerable decisions about what government programs to fund, whether to go to war, who should benefit from tax cuts, and every other area touched by the federal government. But before a president gets to make these choices, we choose whom we want making them, whom we want running the government.
For the third election in a row there is a stark difference between candidates. From our perspective at SCA, the question is who would better support the rights of nonreligious Americans? Is it the one who goes to church and prays regularly or the one who never goes, knows next to nothing about religion, and sells Bibles for $60? Ironically it’s the one who goes to church and prays regularly. (As it has been with President Biden.)
Here are a few points to consider: Harris says people do not have to abandon their faith to agree that decisions on abortion should not be controlled by the government. She also says doctors and healthcare personnel should not be able to opt out of providing reproductive care because of their religious beliefs. Harris emphasizes the altruistic aspects of her faith, helping those in need.
Trump plans to establish a task force to fight anti-Christian bias. He also wants to allow preachers to endorse candidates and to make it possible for any family to use vouchers to send their kids to religious schools. He recently told Christian pastors they would have enhanced access: “It will be directly into the Oval Office — and me.” Also, “We have to save religion in this country.”
During Trump’s term he signed executive orders that made it easier for faith-based organizations to receive federal funding and to allow them to discriminate in whom they hire based on religion. During the Biden-Harris term those regulations have been reversed.
_________________________________________
“We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality, which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess.” – Adolf Hitler, 1933.
We hadn’t found the right time to share that quote until the reports last week that while in the White House Trump said, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” meaning absolutely loyal. (Never mind that he didn’t know some of the generals tried to assassinate Hitler.) Hitler’s appeal to Christian nationalism in 1933 shows what can happen when statements like his find a receptive audience among the Christian population. That statement seems right at home on Trump’s side of the current presidential campaign.
The polls show that the race is a coin flip and therefore some 80 million people are going to vote for Trump. His admiration for dictators and demand for absolute loyalty among subordinates should be flashing red warning signs. He hired Christian nationalists to help run the government last time and he will certainly do so again.
As a nonprofit, the Secular Coalition for America cannot endorse a particular candidate. Instead, we simply encourage everyone to vote for the country.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
If you don’t feel like you have enough to read about the election, we’re here to help. We’ve got some articles on the general topic of the candidates’ views on religion and its role in government. Plus a few on adjacent topics like the election’s possible impact on the Supreme Court. These should keep you busy.
And finally, here again is the link to our Secular America Votes page for voter information. As they like to say, make sure you have a plan to vote if you haven’t already.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
Both Harris and Trump are beginning to make their closing arguments. Harris seems to be going more negative, attacking Trump on a variety of fronts. Trump may be reaching out to his evangelical base more than he has been, though it’s difficult to tell with him. Last Monday he spoke to a large group of pastors in North Carolina for an hour. Last Sunday Harris spoke at a church service in Atlanta, for just 18 minutes. I watched both so you don’t have to.
First the obvious: campaigning in a church on Sunday is just not right, and should not happen. There are a thousand other places to speak to a crowd in Georgia. The Johnson Amendment prevents church leaders (and any nonprofit) from endorsing political candidates or else the church/nonprofit could lose its nonprofit status. Bipartisan educational events are allowed. I don’t know if any Republicans were invited to speak, but Harris could have just not created the situation. (There’s no penalty on a candidate who speaks at a church or nonprofit.)
Harris stayed on message for the setting. She talked about the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped someone whom no one else would help. She talked about helping the poor and the needy. She said people should live their faith, for example by helping hurricane victims. She made no campaign promises.
At another Harris rally this week in Wisconsin someone in the crowd yelled “Christ is king” while Harris was speaking. She said “Oh you guys are at the wrong rally. I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.” For this she has been widely accused of being anti-Christian by conservatives.
Trump did make campaign promises in his speech, a lot of them. Most actually require Congress to do something:
Overturn the Johnson Amendment in his first week.
Set up a new federal task force to fight anti-Christian bias. (The heckler at the Harris rally said on X afterwards, “Christianity is the most hated and persecuted religion in the world.”)
Establish universal school choice so parents can send their children to whatever kind of school they want including religious schools.
Establish a $10,000 tax credit for expenses for parents who homeschool their kids.
Reaffirm that God created two genders.
“We will proudly say Merry Christmas again.”
And finally, “Everyone will prosper.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump shows up at a church this Sunday. It would help with any stray evangelicals. Also, he has more time on Sundays now that the Secret Service told him they can’t guarantee his safety at his two favorite golf courses because of the logistics, so his weekly Sunday golf games have been on hold.
Trump’s four years of executive orders demonstrate his abysmal record on separating church from state. In his Monday speech he gave one example: “I issued guidance that the right to freedom to worship does not end at the door to a public school.” Here’s another one that makes sure faith-based organizations in federal grant programs can discriminate based on that faith. President Biden reversed it.
Almost every state has early voting (Sorry Alabamians) so I’m again linking to our Secular America Votes page where you can check your registration status, see what ballot initiatives you will vote on, and maybe still get an absentee ballot.
Control of both houses of Congress is clearly at stake in this election and will decide whether the new president can get much done, so here again is the link to our House and Senate Voter Scorecards.
Finally, our intern Chris wrote an interesting article for the Blog on how the authors of Project 2025 use semantics to disguise the true intentions behind their policy proposals.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
While an extremely lengthy and often frustrating read, there is much to analyze and learn from Project 2025 and its authors’ writing strategies. Cleverly using semantics throughout Project 2025, the authors somewhat successfully mask the fundamental reasoning behind, and severity of, many of their proposed solutions. Of course, given the widely negative news coverage across political parties, as well as former president Donald Trump’s attempts to distance himself from the Project, it’s obvious to most that Project 2025’s plans would prove disastrous for the future of the country. With this article, though, I hope to break down some of the less obviously problematic proposals in Project 2025, as well as to discuss the methods by which the authors of Project 2025 disguise their intentions; methods which will almost certainly be used in many future political projects and proposals in years to come.
To explain what exactly “camouflaging” semantics means in this context, I should first elaborate on what I mean by semantics. The study of the meaning of words, sometimes referred to as specifically lexical semantics, is infinitely pervasive in all aspects of our daily lives. Whether you read the news in the morning, listen to podcasts while on a jog, or have conversations with friends over a cup of coffee, you subconsciously use and understand the lexicon of your native language as you interact with it. Put simply, you understand words and their meanings within the context of your interacting with them. Say you space out during a conversation with a friend in which you are discussing formal clothing. If you catch only the word “tie”, you will instinctively understand that they were referring to the article of clothing. In a different context, for example a conversation about soccer with the same person, if you spaced out and only caught the word “tie”, you would know they are talking about two teams having an even score, not the article of clothing.
Another fantastic example of interacting with semantics in a similar way, if you’ve ever played it, is the New York Times game Connections. Tasked with deducing the similarity between a grouping of words, New York Times’ Connections game provides an excellent means to practice actively thinking about semantics during your daily commute.
Now, Project 2025 does not use semantics as overtly as NYT Connections or my previous example involving the word “tie”. It does, however, include many examples of key words which need to be read from multiple slightly different perspectives to fully understand the severity of their corresponding proposals. For example, on page 5 of the foreword of Project 2025 Kevin Roberts writes, “Pornography should be outlawed.” While obviously an infringement on freedom of speech motivated by the creators of Project 2025’s desire to force their religious beliefs on all other Americans, this may not seem like the most inflammatory proposal at first read. The true danger in this sentence and others like it in Project 2025, is hidden in the meaning of key words like “Pornography”. More specifically, in the author’s individual and particular definitions of these key words.
In this example, on the same page, Roberts writes “Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children…” Here, Roberts equates transgenderism with pornography, as well as the phrase “sexualization of children”, which most often refers to the education of children at a young age on concepts such as gender, sex, and sexuality. Roberts’ definition, importantly, does not match with the widely understood definition that almost all readers would instinctively think of. If a reader happens to skip the sentence in which Roberts provides his understanding, or simply forgets Roberts’ definition in the process of reading, they would default to their own preconceived notion, thus potentially having a less negative reaction to reading the proposal that “Pornography should be outlawed.”
This is one of the creative semantic strategies frequently employed by the authors of Project 2025. Relying on readers’ general understanding of key words, they disguise their more specific yet often broader reaching definitions and the implications of agreeing with and implementing them.
Along similar lines, Project 2025 uses extremely common and effective tactics to appeal to positive moral sensibilities. Specifically, by using words and phrases like “pro-life”, “supporting parental rights to choose their child(ren)’s curriculum”, and “promoting the health and well-being of women and their unborn children”, the authors of Project 2025 downplay and distract from the negative realities of the implementation of their policies. After all, “pro-life” is much more appealing than “anti-choice”, and “supporting parental rights” certainly appears less problematic than “forcing the Bible to be included in public school curriculum”.
It is worth noting, of course, that both major political parties in the U.S. implement semantic tactics like these all throughout their messaging. I would encourage you, the next time you are reading, watching, or listening to an article, opinion, news story, or even a tweet that contains political material, to take a moment to dissect key words and try to uncover all the relevant implications of the author’s choice to use that specific word.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Afternoon, December 5, 2024
MRFF VICTORY!!!
MRFF ACTION COMPELS NATIONAL CEMETERYTO KEEP JEWISH VETERAN’S GRAVE SAFE FROMDESECRATION BY WREATHS ACROSS AMERICA;WIDOW HAS PERMISSION TO PLACE MENORAH
It’s that time of year again — time for the grifters known as Wreaths Across America (WAA) to indiscriminately carpet bomb thousands of national and other cemeteries where veterans are buried with their Christmas wreaths, Christianizing the graves of countless Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian veterans, as well as veterans of non-faith traditions. This year’s annual desecration of non-Christian veterans graves by WAA — made even more egregious by being endorsed, heavily promoted, and participated in by the United States Military — will take place a week from Saturday on December 14. While WAA insists that it only places its Christmas wreaths on the graves of Christian veterans, the literally hundreds of photos sent to MRFF of WAA’s Christmas wreaths defiling innumerable graves that are clearly marked with the Star of David, Muslim crescent and star, other non-Christian religious symbols, and non-faith tradition symbols prove WAA’s claim to be a bald-faced lie. MRFF’s first salvo in this year’s battle to keep non-Christian veteran’s graves from being Christianized by WAA was to intervene with the Pikes Peak National Cemetery on behalf of a Jewish veteran’s widow to keep her husband’s gravesite off-limits to WAA and its Christmas wreath blitzkrieg and to get the cemetery to allow her to place a Menorah at the gravesite.
A few of the hundreds of past MRFF client and supporter photos showing Wreaths Across America Christmas wreaths “Christianizing” graves clearly marked as Jewish, atheist, and Muslim
“THREE CHEERS AND FIVE GOLD STARS FOR MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION!”.— Widow of Jewish veteran whose husband’s grave will not be desecrated by Wreaths Across America this year due to MRFF’s intervention with Pikes Peak National Cemetery in Colorado
From: (MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Pikes Peak National Cemetery (Colorado Springs, Colorado)Date: December 4, 2024 at 2:56:21 PM MSTTo: <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Please accept my gratitude for the totally satisfactory and speedy resolution of my issues with Pikes Peak National Cemetery located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The respect and genuine concern for my pain shown to me by Michael Weinstein at Military Religious Freedom Foundation was heartfelt and sincere. The issue involved my request to place a symbol of Hanukkah on my husband’s grave and my refusal to allow Wreaths Across America to place a Christian symbol there. Shortly after Mr. Weinstein’s intervention I received a call from the cemetery director allowing me access and the right to place a Menorah at my husband’s grave. I am (age withheld) years old and it will soon be mine. THREE CHEERS AND FIVE GOLD STARS FOR MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION! (MRFF Client’s name withheld)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday Afternoon, December 4, 2024
ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP) ARTICLE ONSECDEF PICK PETE HEGSETH FEATURESMRFF PRESIDENT MIKEY WEINSTEIN ANDADVISORY BOARD MEMBER LARRY WILKERSON
The Associated Press turned to MRFF as the preeminent voice on protecting religious freedom in the militaryfor its article on Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense — a rabid Christian nationalist who believes a “holy war”is “required” in America, led by “crusader in chief, Donald Trump.”
Photo by Gage Skidmore (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESSCOVERS MRFF US military takes pride in religious diversity. Would things change if Pete Hegseth takes charge? By: Peter Smith Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Article excerpts (emphasis added): Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said Hegseth “promotes the concept of fundamentalist Christian dominance and supremacy.” Weinstein, an Air Force veteran, said military personnel have the right to practice and proclaim their faith – but within constitutional restrictions on the “time, place and manner” of such expressions. “Christian nationalists like Hegseth believe there are no limits on when they can deploy their faith,” Weinstein said.
Larry Wilkerson, a retired colonel with 31 years in the military and an advisory board member of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said Hegseth is an alarming choice. “Diversity is a strength, but you’ve got to know how to lead it,” said Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. “You don’t do it by forcing the majority’s or even a large minority’s views on them.”
Previous MRFF coverage of the threat to the U.S. military as we know it in a second MAGA Administration
Video Message from Mikey Weinstein on Trump Firing “Woke” Generals and hisChristian Supremacist Pick for Defense Secretary Wednesday, November 13, 2024
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Evening, November 21, 2024
NPR NETWORK’s EXTREMELY AMERICANHOST HEATH DRUZIN INTERVIEWSMRFF’s MIKEY WEINSTEIN ON PETE HEGSETHFOR THE IDAHO CAPITAL SUN Heath Druzin is the host and creator of the Extremely American podcast, which looks at the intersection of extremism and politics. For the latest season he spent a year inside the Christian nationalism movement with a focus on the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which Hegseth’s church is a part of.________________ “Pete Hegseth is a poster child for literally everything that would be the opposite of what you would want to have for someone who’s controlling the technologically most lethal organization in history of this country,” “Christian nationalism is an absolute fatal cancer metastasizing at light speed (for) the national security of this country. It is a Christian version of the Taliban.” — Mikey Weinstein Quotes from Idaho Capital Sun Article
Mikey Weinstein, Founder and President of Military Religious Freedom Foundation
MIKEY WEINSTEIN COVERED BYIDAHO CAPITAL SUN
Trump’s Defense Secretary Nominee has close ties to Idaho Christian Nationalists By: Heath Druzin Thursday, November 21, 2024
The Idaho Capital Sun concretely exposes Pete Hegseth’s ties to a Christian nationalist church and his extreme Christian nationalist ideas for nothing short of an American theocracy. The article quotes MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein on the danger of Hegseth to our military: “Pete Hegseth is a poster child for literally everything that would be the opposite of what you would want to have for someone who’s controlling the technologically most lethal organization in the history of this country.”
Extremely American: Onward Christian Soldiers host Heath Druzin and James Dawson take an inside look at Christian nationalism. The movement aims to end American democracy as we know it and install theocracy, taking rights away from the vast majority of Americans in the process. The season follows the movement through the story of an influential far-right church, its attempt to take over a small town and a dark underbelly of abuse.
Field Grade Officer and Senior Developmental Education Student Appreciation of MRFF Legal Guidance
From: (Field Grade Military Officer and MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Field Grade Officer and Senior Developmental Education Student Appreciation of MRFF Legal GuidanceDate: November 20, 2024 at 6:36:06 PM MSTTo: mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Good evening,I want to express my sincere appreciation to MRFF for its immediate response to my query today regarding the illegal use of religion in military Senior Developmental Education. As a field grade officer, I am concerned about religious proselytizing at my university, which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has tasked with educating senior military officers to serve in joint staff and command roles post-graduation. The prevalence of religious materials and themes has been integrated into required readings, lectures, and seminar discussions with no significant bearing on course objectives, thus violating the separation of church and state. It is deeply troubling that Christian Fundamentalism continues to pervade the military to the detriment of good order and discipline, which negatively impacts wartime readiness. If senior military officers are being subjected to this radicalization, I can only imagine what our Company Grade Officers and junior enlisted members are having to tolerate in their daily service. Mr. Weinstein contacted me immediately to set up a call to discuss the facts and to provide advice and guidance on how to proceed with using the chain of command, and should it not address the issue, how to file formal complaints. I have long supported MRFF and am grateful for its many fights to maintain constitutional protections for all service members. Sincerely, (Military Senior Developmental Education Student’s name, rank, MOS/AFSC, unit, and assigned installation all withheld)Click to read in Inbox
SUPPORT MRFF’s SOCIAL MEDIA Please Help IncreaseMRFF’s Social Media Engagement
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Tuesday Afternoon, November 19, 2024
ON POINT PODCAST/RADIO SHOW ON NPRINTERVIEWS MIKEY WEINSTEIN FORMRFF’S RESPONSE TO TRUMP’S PICKFOR DOD SECRETARY, PETE HEGSETH Also interviewed on this episode: Missy Ryan, reporter for the Washington Post, covering national security, and defense and Allison Jaslow, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America On Point is distributed to over 290 public radio stations across the U.S. On Point averages over 2 Million podcast downloads monthly
Click the Yellow Play button next to the podcast title.Mikey Weinstein’s segment begins at 23:53
MIKEY WEINSTEIN INTERVIEWED BYON POINT RADIO SHOW/PODCAST ON NPR
Who is Pete Hegseth?What to know about Donald Trump’s Pentagon pick By: Jonathan Chang and Beghna Chakrabarti Tuesday, November 19, 2024 Excerpt from Mikey Weinstein’s Interview: “I think the first thing is that Trump wants to establish, and this I’m sure would be completely controlled by Hegseth,Warrior Boards, former officers, retired senior officers who will decide which goal and admirals follow the MAGA agenda, the Christian Nationalist agenda, strongly enough to remain in their positions.All those who don’t will be jettisoned.”
Active Duty Christian Chaplain Expresses Gratitude to MRFF “Thank You” From: (Active Duty Military Chaplain’s E-Mail Address Withheld)Subject: Thank youDate: November 17, 2024 at 5:03:08 PM MSTTo: mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Dear Mikey,I want to take a moment to thank you for your unabashedly dynamic care for the religious freedoms of every United States Service Member. Your passion is truly a gift to Service Members and their Families, especially in this turbulent season when our constitution and democracy are being threatened. Thank you for always answering the phone, for listening and for giving a voice to the voiceless. MRFF helps Service Members speak truth to power when it’s needed the most. As an active duty Christian chaplain, I know that you are available anytime myself or a Service Member needs a little help discerning our next steps and our rights. Again thank you for all you do! Sincerely,CH (Rank and Name Withheld)Click to read in Inbox
SUPPORT MRFF’s SOCIAL MEDIA Please Help IncreaseMRFF’s Social Media Engagement
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday Evening, November 13, 2024
VIDEO MESSAGE FROM MIKEY WEINSTEIN ON TRUMP FIRING “WOKE” GENERALS AND HIS CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST PICK FOR DEFENSE SECRETARY “Trump’s desire to use the military with his MAGA-infused worldview includes creating something called a ‘Warrior Panel’ … to review all the current generals and admirals out there to determine whether or not they’re too ‘woke’ to continue in the military.” — MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein, who has been inundated with calls from MRFF’s many flag officer (generals and admirals) clients and supporters who are uneasy, to put it mildly, about Trump’s “woke”-purging plans for the military and Christian supremacist pick for SECDEF
“Trump presidency” From: (name withheld)Subject: Trump presidencyDate: November 8, 2024 at 9:01:08 AM MSTTo: mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org I’m not a military member but many of my family members were in the military and fought to protect and defend the people and the constitution from men like trump. Please tell me the military is not going to obey Trump to use the military against his perceived enemies. How did this atrocity happen, a psycho dictator with unchecked power out for revenge? Do you know who I can contact for help? someone has to defend this nation and it’s constitution from this domestic enemy!
“Retired Journalist Praises MRFF” From:(Retired Journalist’s e-mail address withheld)Date: November 10, 2024 at 3:16:53 AM MSTTo: Michael L Weinstein <mikeyw4444@icloud.com>Subject: Retired Journalist Praises MRFF As a reporter covering the US military I once wrote about what I thought was an odd episode: a basic training commander required trainees to attend Christian chapel services even if they were not Christian. I thought it would be a one off story, because there was no way the military would tolerate such a thing. I was wrong. And thanks to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation the entire country quickly learned that Christian nationalists were active across the military as well as the service academies. For more than 20 years now Mikey Weinstein, founder of MRFF, has been waging a relentless battle against these attempts at forced proselytizing. Even a casual glance at the news reveals the dangers that come with religious divisions. The last thing the US military needs is to have such divisions arise within its ranks. The MRFF has been and remains critical in keeping that from happening. (Retired journalist’s name and all other ID information withheld)
“MIkey the Jackwagon Lose/Putin/Trump win” Subject: MIkey the Jackwagon Lose/Putin/Trump winDate: November 6, 2024 at 8:14:37 AM MSTTo: Mikey Weinstein Майки проигрывает, а Путин/Трамп побеждает. ха-хa. And so now Trump/Putin win against the jackwagon the MIkey the Clown Winestein. HAHA You loose HAHA. Go jump off cliff dumbwagon.
“We won ass clown” From:(name withheld)Date: November 9, 2024 at 7:47:59 AM MSTTo: Mikey Weinstein Subject: We won ass clownHey ask clown Mikey we won now go move to fucking Gaza and try your stupid bullshit there sony boy. Unburden us from you by leaving as soon as possible worthless cocksucker.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
VIDEO MESSAGE FROM MRFF’S MIKEY WEINSTEIN: “WE ARE GOING NOWHERE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT.” “We are going nowhere. Please understand that. I understand how dark and difficult it seems to be right now. We are going nowhere. We will continue to fight, fight, fight just as hard as we ever have.” — MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein, who has been inundated with phone calls from “pretty frantic and terrified” clients and supporters in the wake of last night’s pretty terrifying election results
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Monday Evening, November 4, 2024
MRFF’S MIKEY WEINSTEIN INTERVIEWED ON THE THREAT OF CHRISTIAN NATIONALISMIN OUR UNITED STATES MILITARYAT “THE HUMANIST” “Our biggest concern is that we were the first organization to sound the alarm on what eventually became known as Christian Nationalism. We’ve been addressing it since the early 2000s. “For many years, people accused us of wearing tinfoil hats. But here we are now. We first identified this threat in the early 2000s and are now in our 21st year of fighting it.” — Excerpt from Interview
MIKEY WEINSTEIN INTERVIEWED AT“THE HUMANIST”
Founder of Military Religious Freedom Foundationon Christian Nationalism By: Scott Douglas Jacobsen Monday, November 4, 2024
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’re back again with Mikey Weinstein. We’re in the final stretch of the federal election season in the United States. What are the main concerns coming your way? What issues are you identifying outside of those directly affecting your constituencies during this election? First, we are a 501(c)(3), so we can’t tell anyone how to vote, but we can certainly discuss the issues involved here. Mike Weinstein: If anyone has read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, with its dystopian portrayal of a Christian Nationalist United States, that offers a striking example of what we’re trying to prevent. It’s a simple question to answer, Scott. Our biggest concern is that we were the first organization to sound the alarm on what eventually became known as Christian Nationalism. We’ve been addressing it since the early 2000s. […]
“A Note of Appreciation” From: A Long Time MRFF Supporter and DonorSubject: A note of appreciationDate: November 4, 2024 at 9:54:45 AM MST Mikey, Thinking of you on the eve of this critical election. Just a quick note to say I sincerely appreciate the relentless hard work and determined effort that you, your staff, and family put in every day to keep not only individuals who serve in our military safe, but our nation and the world as well. A Long Time MRFF Supporter and DonorClick to read in Inbox
SUPPORT MRFF’s SOCIAL MEDIA Please Help IncreaseMRFF’s Social Media Engagement
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Friday Afternoon, November 1, 2024
MRFF VICTORY!!!
MRFF HELPS USAF SQUAD COMMANDERS STOP PROSELYTIZING GROUP COMMANDERFROM FORCING AIRMEN TO WATCH GRUESOME CHRISTIAN MOVIE
“Mr. Weinstein, I am one of the USAF Squadron Commanders with whom you have been working very recently regarding a disturbing incident where our immediate rating superior (Group Commander)has been attempting to force us to have our unit’s airmen attend a mandatory event focussed on specifically spreading Christianity under the guise of increasing “Spiritual Readiness.”The mandatory event involved the watching of a particularly controversial Christian movie with which we know you and the MRFF are quite familiar. “We’re sorry but we can’t be any more specific than that for the obvious reasons. However, I did want to thank you so very much on behalf of all of us for your personal intercession with our Wing leadership to stop our Group Commander in his tracks.” — E-mail from one of a group of USAF Squadron Commanders
E-mail to Mikey Weinstein from grateful USAF Squadron Commander
“Thank you for stopping our proselytizing Group Commander” From: (Active Duty USAF Squadron Commander’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thank you for stopping our proselytizing Group CommanderDate: October 30, 2024 at 2:11:45 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Mr. Weinstein, I am one of the USAF Squadron Commanders with whom you have been working very recently regarding a disturbing incident where our immediate rating superior (Group Commander) has been attempting to force us to have our unit’s airmen attend a mandatory event focussed on specifically spreading Christianity under the guise of increasing “Spiritual Readiness.” The mandatory event involved the watching of a particularly controversial Christian movie with which we know you and the MRFF are quite familiar. We’re sorry but we can’t be any more specific than that for the obvious reasons. However, I did want to thank you so very much on behalf of all of us for your personal intercession with our Wing leadership to stop our Group Commander in his tracks. That “Spiritual Readiness” event has been cancelled and our Group Commander is apparently in the process of actually being fired. Not sure yet whether the matter we brought to your and the MRFF’s attention was the main reason or perhaps the straw that broke the camel’s back. As we all told you, sir, this is not the first time our Group Commander has attempted to impose his evangelical Christian faith upon all of us in the Group. Lastly, and for what it’s worth, all of the Squadron Commanders who came to you and the MRFF for help here happen to be Christians ourselves. That should not matter as we all took an oath to the Constitution which in no way allows our Group Commander to have done what he did in trying to proselytize all of us with his views of our own Christian faith. Mr. Weinstein, thank you and the MRFF again for having our 6 at all times. You guys are just awesome! V/R (Active Duty USAF Squadron Commander’s name, rank, unit, and installation all withheld)
MRFF has been fighting back against attempts to proselytize under the guise of “Spiritual Readiness” and “Spiritual Fitness” for nearly a decade and a half
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Afternoon, October 31, 2024
PENTAGON GENERAL EXPOSED BY MRFF AS NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION (NAR) ADHERENT ALSO TIED TO ELECTION DENIERS AND JAN. 6 SUPPORTERS
On the weekend of August 29-31, 2024, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who recently got his third star and a new position as Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, was photographed giving a presentation – in uniform – at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, from 2021 until this past summer, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets, apostles, and kingdom warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation — a politically influential Christian dominionist movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it. Now MRFF has uncovered that Lt. General Eifler also has a disturbingly close connection to “Stop the Steal” election deniers who helped foment the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Photo by SWinxy (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Pentagon general exposed by MRFF as NAR adherent tied to election deniers and Jan. 6 supporters By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Thursday, October 31, 2024
“I truly believe Charlie Kirk is the most important man in America for the future of our nation,” wrote self-described “high risk humanitarian” Victor Marx in a December 2023 Instagram post.
Who would wholeheartedly agree with Victor Marx’s praise of Kirk? Well, Don Jr., for one, who very similarly said of Kirk in a quote on the Turning Point USA website, “I’m convinced that the work by Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk will win back the future of America.” Victor Marx, who was James Dobson’s assistant at the brazenly Christian nationalistic Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs before founding his own All Things Possible ministry, and Charlie Kirk, the founder and president of the Trump-loving, election-denying, insurrection-supporting, wokeism-fighting Turning Point USA, have much mutual admiration of each other. Kirk gushes like a schoolgirl about Victor Marx on his radio show, on which Marx has appeared a number of times. Marx has also spoken at Turning Point USA events, joining the list of such luminaries as Don Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Kyle Rittenhouse. Kirk wrote the foreword to Marx’s new book The Dangerous Gentleman: A Call For Men to be Courageous in a Culture of Fear, describing Marx as “a dear friend for many years” and, on the page for one of his radio show episodes, as “one of Christ’s great warriors and a longtime friend of the show.” Victor Marx is a black belt in karate who can do neat tricks like disarming someone with a gun faster than anyone else ever, and he can also expel demons from people! Yes, he does a hell of a lot of expelling demons, who he says are “assigned to” people. Charlie Kirk was, of course, a big “Stop the Steal” figure, leading a protest in his own state of Arizona and sending busloads of Trump-supporters to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, tweeting two days before the insurrection: “The historic event will likely be one of the largest and most consequential in American history. The team at @TrumpStudents & Turning Point Action are honored to help make this happen, sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.” This is the third post in an ongoing exposé by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) of U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler and his disturbing ties to the dangerously politically powerful New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and other nefarious elements that seek to end democracy as we know it. My September 13 post, “MRFF demands investigation of 3-Star Pentagon general’s disturbing ties to New Apostolic Reformation,” exposed that Lt. General Eifler delivered a presentation, in full uniform, at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Lt. General Brian Eifler speaking in uniform at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held in Washington, D.C., from August 29-31, 2024
So, what does all the stuff about Victor Marx and Charlie Kirk at the beginning of this post have to do with Lt. General Eifler? Well, Charlie Kirk’s “dear friend for many years” Victor Marx is also Lt. General Eifler’s close friend of many years. Here’s Marx’s Facebook post from 2021 about officiating at the Eifler’s daughter’s wedding.
And here’s Lt. General Eifler’s wife Sherry with Marx and his wife Eileen back in 2018. Eileen Marx wrote a blurb for Sherry Eifler’s Bible study Royal Reflections: The Making of a Warrior Princess, and Sherry Eifler donates part of the book’s proceeds to Marx’s All Things Possible ministry.
Now, what if I told you that Lt. General Eifler, as Commanding General, 11th Airborne Division/Deputy Commander, United States Alaskan Command, got his (and Charlie Kirk’s) buddy Victor Marx a DoD contract to come to Alaska as part of his “Targeted Soul Care” campaign and that Eifler, then a 2-star general, made it mandatory for all personnel under his command to go listen to him. Yeah, he did that.
The order above also required the chaplains to provide “photography and videography support to Targeted Soul Care on JBER and FWA from 20- 27 Apr 22,” and the following video about this mandatory Christian “training” — in a chapel, with the videographer making sure to get a good shot of the stained glass window of Jesus walking with a soldier — was apparently the result.
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson official Victor Marx video
Mandatory Victor Marx “training” at Fort Wainwright
Lt. General Eifler regularly forced his religion on the soldiers at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) and Fort Wainwright (FWA) in a number of other thoroughly appalling ways during the three years that he was in command in Alaska, not the least of which was having one of the NAR’s “Alaska’s War Council” leaders bless the troops in the name of Jesus at the large mandatory 11th Airborne Division activation ceremony at Fort Wainwright, but these other flagrant and outrageous violations of both military regulations and the Constitution will have to wait until my next post. Under normal circumstances, the main issue of concern to MRFF with Lt. Gen. Eifler’s “Targeted Soul Care” Victor Marx events would be that a commanding general was forcing the soldiers under his command to attend mandatory religious “training.” But, just like MRFF’s main concern with Lt. Gen. Eifler’s participation in NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s big annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in uniform wasn’t merely that he was speaking at a religious event in uniform but that he was participating in an event of a dangerous, subversive, politically powerful movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it, Eifler’s close friendship with someone who’s on the same page as Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA is of even greater concern. At the time of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Lt. General Eifler, then a 1-star general, was stationed at the Pentagon as the Army’s Chief Legislative Liaison, which makes it all the more disconcerting that he has such disturbingly close connections to both NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs, one of the Trump-supporting prayer leaders outside the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, who was caught on video saying, as the breach of the Capitol was getting underway, “And we’re right in front of the Capitol and the lord had given me a vision and he showed me that they would break through and go all the way to the top,” and Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, which sent buses of Trump supporters to D.C. on Jan. 6. As I reported on September 25 the Army IG has opened an investigative inquiry into Lt. General Eifler in response to MRFF’s demand, but to end on a frightening note, if the unthinkable happens on election day and Trump gets into power and makes good on his vow to rid the military of “woke” generals, what we’ll be left with to lead our military will be generals of Eifler’s ilk.
The BC Humanist Association (BCHA) is joining reproductive justice advocates in lauding an announcement by the federal government to require greater transparency from so-called “crisis pregnancy centres” (CPCs). This move is a significant step towards ensuring that organizations promoting harmful and misleading information about reproductive health cannot exploit charitable tax benefits.
Specifically, the amendments will require any registered charity that provides reproductive health services to disclose if it does not provide or refer for abortion or birth control services.
“By preventing organizations that spread misinformation and undermine reproductive health from gaining charitable status, the government is taking a crucial step towards protecting the well-being and autonomy of individuals,” said BCHA Executive Director Ian Bushfield.
In 2023, the BCHA co-authored a study into the websites of anti-choice CPCs. We found that nearly all had charitable tax status and over one-third lacked disclosures that they did not disclose their opposition to abortion or contraceptives. Three-quarters showed evidence of a religious agenda.
These new tools would permit the Canada Revenue Agency to strip the charitable status of agencies run afoul of the rules.
Unfortunately, the proposed bill will not proceed until MPs resolve an ongoing impasse over privilege motions that have shutdown the work of the House of Commons.
Lawyers argued over the constitutionality of BC’s privacy law at the BC Court of Appeal yesterday in an ongoing dispute between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC.
The BCHA was able to bring the voice of those who’ve chosen to dissociate from religion to the court.
The case began several years ago when two former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) requested records held by their former congregations in Grand Forks and Coldstream under BC’s privacy law (PIPA). The JWs believe their religion requires the records to be kept confidential and have fought the required disclosure to the Privacy Commissioner, arguing the privacy law is unconstitutional.
The BCHA intervened at the Supreme Court of BC in September 2023. That Court dismissed the JW’s petition and that decision was appealed. Yesterday, the Court of Appeal heard those arguments.
Our arguments, presented by our pro-bono counsel John Trueman and Chloe Trudel, walked through our perspectives on: freedom, consent and religion; assessing the severity of the claimed Charter infringement in this case; and how the court might balance that infringement against the importance of privacy rights.
We suggest that [PIPA] recognizes the inherent power imbalance between organizations and individuals. Far from being a state intrusion into the private affairs of religious congregations, PIPA tries to protect individuals – members and non-members – from having their personal information used, or misused, without their consent.
Unfortunately, the Court does not record, nor permit, recordings of its proceedings; however, we posted a few updates throughout the proceedings to Threads, including our brief arguments.
The real claim [by the Jehovah’s Witnesses] is that they have the constitutional right to keep secret files about former members without consent, and without any regulation by the state.
The justices reserved judgement, meaning it will be another three to six months before we have a decision. That may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The BCHA will continue to follow this case with great interest.
The BC Humanist Association has written in opposition to a forthcoming City of Vancouver Council Members’ motion, arguing it runs contrary to the spirit of the City’s constitutional duty of religious neutrality.
The motion, spearheaded by Councillor Rebecca Bligh, calls for the City to organize a dialogue with “faith-based groups, BC Housing, the Provincial and Federal governments, and other stakeholders” to discuss redeveloping land held by religious groups into affordable housing. It further asks staff to identify “resources and staff support available to faith-based groups…as well as potential policy and/or regulatory changes that would support the deployment of these properties to deliver affordable housing.”
In his letter, BCHA Executive Director Ian Bushfield describes the motion as “well-intentioned” but is concerned that it privileges religious groups ahead of other secular non-profit organizations who might also be looking to redevelop their properties.
“Narrowing in on places of worship when many of those property owners are among the wealthiest organizations in the world is a poor use of the City’s limited resources,” said Bushfield. “By all means support non-profits in developing affordable housing but the City ought to do so without discriminating based on belief.”
The BCHA instead recommends that the City ask the province to end the automatic property tax exemption for places of worship, creating a financial incentive for such groups to redevelop underutilized properties.
Update Oct 24, 2024: Last night, council adopted the motion with Councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung abstaining and Councillor Christine Boyle absent (Boyle was recently elected MLA for Vancouver-Little Mountain).
For the sixth time, research from the BCHA has identified municipalities violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
A new report from the BC Humanist Association (BCHA) found that multiple Saskatchewan municipalities continue to include prayers in their council meetings, despite a 2015 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that deemed the practice unconstitutional.
The release of the report comes as Saskatchewan voters are set to go to the polls in November to elect new local governments.
“Prayers turn council meetings into a preferential space for believers and tell atheists they are less welcome in their community,” said Ian Bushfield, Executive Director of the BCHA. “With the publication of this report, we’re hoping Saskatchewan is the first province to have completely secular inaugural council meetings later this fall.”
The report identified Prince Albert and Pinehouse as including prayers at the start of every regular council meeting. Additionally, at least three — Moose Jaw, North Battleford and Pinehouse — included prayers in their most recent inaugural meetings in 2020.
“Almost a decade after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Saguenay, it is disappointing to see municipalities continuing to violate their duty of religious neutrality in Saskatchewan,” said Teale Phelps Bondaroff, Research Coordinator at the BCHA. “Including prayer in municipal council meetings not only violates the municipality’s duty of religious neutrality but creates an environment in municipal council chambers where some residents are made to feel less welcome than others.”
The report singled out the City of Prince Albert as the “most egregious example” of a Saskatchewan municipality violating the Saguenay decision, as council instructs a staff member to deliver a prayer at the start of each regular council meeting.
“Employees are particularly vulnerable relative to the elected council,” said Bushfield. “There should never be any expectation that an employee of a secular government expresses a religious position. Such a requirement acts as a barrier to nonreligious (or even simply pro-secular) staff who would be forced to violate their conscience to perform their duties.”
The BCHA previously found seven religious invocations or prayers in British Columbia’s 2022 inaugural council meetings but has since secured commitments from those municipalities that all future meetings will be ‘prayer-free.’ Previous reports have found instances of municipal prayers in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.
The report concludes by calling on all municipalities to remove ‘prayers’ or ‘invocations’ from their meeting agendas, arguing that such changes are vital to protecting the Charter rights of all citizens.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
By Nicole Carr
In accordance with its bylaws, the American Humanist Association (AHA) conducted an election for eight positions on the AHA Board of Directors. All AHA members in good standing received a ballot via e-mail through eBallot, a third-party voting site, and were notified through theHumanist.comand email. Voting opened on September 30th and closed on October 14th.
The Board elections represent two things that are unique about the AHA: First, we put our democratic values into action and give members the ability to shape the direction of our organization. Second, all of our successes are possible because of leaders who step up and volunteer their time to build our movement in roles such as the ones in this election.
The terms for the new Board members begin on January 1, 2025.
The following candidates were newly elected to the Board of Directors:
Evan Clark is a humanist entrepreneur, public speaker, and award-winning community organizer with over 16 years of experience tinkering with secular communities. He is currently the Executive Director of Atheists United in Los Angeles, the North American Coordinator for Young Humanists International, and the Southern California State Director for American Atheists. Evan was previously Chair of the Secular Student Alliance Board of Directors, co-founder of the Humanist Community of Ventura County, co-host of the Humanist Experience podcast, Outreach Director for the James Woods for Congress campaign, and founder of Spectrum Experience LLC. As a student leader, Evan was the founder and president of the Secular Student Alliance at California Lutheran University and was also elected as the university’s first openly atheist student body president.
Ellie Haylund is an enthusiastic humanist and has been involved with her local chapter, HumanistsMN, for almost a decade. Since 2016, she has served on HumanistsMN’s board of directors, is their current president, and co-chairs the marketing committee. She is passionate about bringing widespread visibility to humanism, cultivating the next generation of humanists, and advocating for the separation of religion and government. Professionally, Ellie manages client experience in the financial services industry. She enjoys live music, crafting, reading, and video gaming. Ellie lives in Minneapolis, MN with her husband and fellow humanist, Nick, and their two rescue dogs, Wally and Tater Tot.
Christian Loyo is a PhD Candidate in Biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research focuses on understanding how bacteria defend themselves against predation by bacteriophages, or bacterial viruses. He is passionate about making science accessible to diverse audiences, ranging from elementary school students to his academic colleagues. Christian previously served as the Vice President of the Secular Society of MIT (SSOMIT), where he promoted secular values at MIT through invited speaker events, increased humanist visibility, and organized community gatherings.
Luciano Joshua Gonzalez-Vega is a writer and social media strategist living in Greensboro, North Carolina. They were born in Fort Liberty, and was raised in Latin America by a veteran and her soldier spouse, and lived throughout South and Central America as well as the American Bible Belt. They attended the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and earned a bachelor’s degree in history before earning a master’s degree in peace and conflict studies from the same institution during the height of COVID-19. In their professional career they have worked as a journalist, writing for magazines and publications like LatinoRebels, The Humanist, The Carolinian, Patheos, OnlySky, The News and Record, and have spoken at various conferences as well as run an American English language publication for expatriates to Honduras known as The Honduras Report from 2013-2018. They are also a professional social media strategist and have worked for various non-profits such as the American Atheist Association and the American Humanist Association. They seek to help publications and organizations implement clever social media strategies and to help people discuss various topics related to humanism with precision, wit, and compassion.
David Orenstein is Department Chairperson and a tenured full professor of anthropology at Medgar Evers College of the City University of New York. He has been affiliated with the AHA for more than a decade. He has taught human evolution, primatology, science history and science advocacy for two decades. He is the author of three books, two published by AHA’s Freethought Press. In addition, he served at the AHA representative to the United Nation, for five years, and is an ordained Humanist Clergy. He is a happy freethinker who believes life is best lived with reason and joy for the human condition.
The AHA thanks the members of the Nominating Committee—Anthony Cruz-Pantojas (chair), Nancy Bolt, Gayle Jordan, and David Williamson—for volunteering their time to identify and vet candidates. The AHA wishes to recognize Jim Palmquist and David Breeden, who also stood for election.
Thank you to all who participated in this election, continuing the AHA’s tradition of being the largest, national, democratic humanist organization in the United States.
Congratulations to the new and returning board members!
Nicole Carr is the Deputy Director of the American Humanist Association, Editor of the Humanist magazine, and Senior Editor of TheHumanist.com. Prior to joining the staff at the AHA, she worked in development and communications for arts and education non-profit organizations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
On Tuesday, the House voted on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, sponsored by Rep. Tenney (NY-24). This legislation would terminate the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that it designates as “terrorist supporting organizations” without due process, essentially providing the executive branch with a powerful weapon to wield at its will against nonprofit advocacy. The bill states the executive branch would NOT have to provide ANY reasoning or evidence for its designation, which would further strip a nonprofit of its agency and ability to accomplish its mission. You can read the bill here.
The American Humanist Association (AHA) quickly released an action alert to urgently amplify the voices of humanists and democrats, who showed up in droves to tell their representatives to vote against the vague and dangerous implications of the bill. The bill and any other iteration of its language, is opposed by the AHA, the ACLU, and 125 other human rights, civil liberties, religious and secular groups.
The ACLU noted the bill “would give the incoming Trump administration a new tool they could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish groups that disagree with them.” Besides being a clear instrument for authoritarian terror, some pointed out that there is already federal law that addresses what the bill purports to combat.
The bill did not undergo regular, thorough legislative review; instead, Republican House leadership fast-tracked it to the Floor using a procedure known as “suspension of the rules.” A piece of legislation needs a two-thirds majority to pass when brought to the Floor using this procedure, which the bill ended up not receiving. H.R. 9495 failed to pass at 256-149 during Tuesday’s vote, thanks to the advocates who campaigned against it through coordinated mobilization efforts and by making their expertise and perspective known to members of Congress.
Unfortunately, this bill received some bipartisan support. When the bill is resurrected during the 119th Congress—which will commence on January 3rd, 2025 under new, powerful leadership that wants to see it pass—it will be important for advocates to rally against it again. Whatever may come in the next four years, the American Humanist Association will stand strong for our civil liberties and human rights, as it always has.
Isabella Russian is the Policy Manager at the American Humanist Association.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
By Lily Bolourian
By now, you’ve heard a lot from the American Humanist Association (and others!) about Project 2025 and many of the dangerous plans that the Christian Nationalist right have published to upend democracy. From calling for fascist immigration policies that would rip our neighbors from their homes, to dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, to greenlighting the further decimation of the environment, the plan is unquestionably dangerous and aims to marginalize huge portions of the population.
When it comes to reproductive freedom, abortion access, and the concept of family, Project 2025’s goals are inherently racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic.
Controlling reproduction is about much more than stripping away access to an inherent right such as abortion. It’s fundamentally about controlling the population in service of white supremacist aims. It’s about enforcing cis-hetero-patriarchy by determining what constitutes a family and what does not, who has the right to reproduce and who does not, and ensuring that marriage is between cisgender straight men and women only. It’s a full-scale attempt to roll back our freedoms and force white Christian Nationalist ideals on the masses.
White Christian Nationalists dream of a time when gender roles were strictly enforced, white men held all the rights, anything that deviated from the nuclear family was shunned, and morality was defined squarely by how closely an individual practices Christianity. Their aim is to promote a vision of the United States that is strictly white and Christian-centric to the detriment of pluralism, humanism, and anyone who does not fit into that narrow definition.
One does not need to dig throughout the plan to see that Christian Nationalist ideals form it—in the very foreword to the plan, Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts writes that one of the top four goals of the plan is to “Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely” (p.3). This is folly when, in fact, our individual rights were never given to us at all but consistently fought for since the founding of our nation. Indeed, the Constitution omitted the use of the word “God” intentionally while bestowing the right to freedom of and from religion in the Bill of Rights.
Although they do not admit it, Christian Nationalists aim to codify whiteness by driving up the white birth rate while simultaneously promising to mass deport mostly non-white immigrants and their children. This type of fascist ideology is riddled throughout Project 2025 and supported by the vast majority of the conservative movement in the United States. They often argue that civil rights are counter to “religious liberty” or infringements upon the right to freely practice religion. That is, of course, a ridiculous assertion with no basis in reality and only intended to be a loose justification for violating the human rights of millions of people. Furthermore, on page 455 of Project 2025’s plan to ramp up monitoring of abortion data nationwide shows their desire to control the pregnancy outcomes of all who can gestate regardless of the individual laws of the states in which they live.
In order to turn back the clock, huge swaths of the population would be forced into subjugation and second-class status, or violently removed from the country. Project 2025 is not only a conservative playbook but a map that leads us directly into a theocracy. We’ve seen how the right will weaponize concepts such as “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” to thwart civil liberties. If given the opportunity, the right has written a game plan through Project 2025 for how to use the powers of the federal government to erode the secular nature of our Constitution in favor of a politicized view of Christianity that most Christians do not even support.
For example, on page 450 of Project 2025, it calls for radically transforming the Department of Health and Human Services and turning it against people who seek health care, from access to abortion to medical aid in dying: “The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.” This inappropriate injection of religious doctrine into public policy is not just an assault on the health care of pregnant people—it’s a direct attack on secularism, democracy, and democratic values.
Separation of religion from government is not a suggestion—it’s one of a handful of rights explicitly and intentionally written into the First Amendment to ensure a wall of separation always remains. This is due to the ways that a marriage between church and state harms the values of pluralism and hurts secular people and individuals from minority religions.
Humanists and the secular movement support the principles of bodily autonomy, individual freedoms, and evidence-based policymaking which run diametrically counter to the aims of Christian Nationalists to control all pregnancy outcomes in the United States and to criminalize patients, providers, and anyone who helps an individual obtain an abortion.
The only future that Project 2025 offers is a future dictated by far right ideological agendas over individual freedoms. The good news is that there is a better option than fascism—it is humanism. Humanists have mobilized across the country to fight back against Christian Nationalism. We still have the power to stop Project 2025 from ever being implemented through education, awareness, and the ballot box. It’s incumbent upon all of us to work together to defeat Christian Nationalism in all of its forms and to keep our institutions free from a hostile takeover that disproportionately threatens the livelihoods of the most marginalized people in our communities.
Tags: Project 2025Lily Bolourian is the Legal and Policy Director at the American Humanist Association. She is a seasoned strategist, policy wonk, and advocate with fifteen years of experience working and winning on issues related to abortion access, reproductive justice, immigration, police violence, and environmental justice. Prior to working with the AHA, Lily was the first woman of color in over thirty years to hold the title of Executive Director of Pro-Choice. She has also been Senior Legislative Aide to Montgomery County, MD Councilmember Will Jawando. She holds a Master of Arts degree in Health Law and Policy from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University and a Bachelor of Arts in Government and International Politics from George Mason University.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Another Week, Another Dispatch – Ready?
Here it is.
This week’s Unbelief Brief covers a tragic murder in Pakistan, a noteworthy blasphemy arrest in the same country, and a proposed blasphemy law in the UK.
Meanwhile, the Persecution Tracker dives deeper into the details of the blasphemy arrest in Pakistan.
Unbelief Brief
As profiled in Volume 22 of this newsletter in October, a Pakistani doctor named Shahnawaz Kumbhar was murdered in September by police after being accused of blasphemy by a local cleric. Following Dr. Kumbhar’s murder, police officials attempted a cover-up claiming he had been killed in a “shootout.” The incident has reverberated throughout Pakistan: despite vigilante killings over blasphemy becoming increasingly common in the country, the fact that police are now perpetrators of this type of violence has created shockwaves. A new video report from France 24 explores the incident and its aftermath in more depth, including testimony from family members of the victim. It’s only 5 minutes and well worth your time; you can watch it here.
More recently, in a new blasphemy case in Pakistan, police successfully protected a blasphemy suspect from being murdered by an angry mob. After being charged and then arrested for insulting the Qur’an, hundreds of protestors blocked a roadway near the police station and demanded the man, named Humayun Ullah, be handed over to them to be lynched. Police did not comply and managed to protect the man by dispersing the crowd. Unfortunately, the larger issue here is the man’s arrest in the first place, enforcing the deeply unjust and backward legal code of Pakistan.
Finally, trouble may be brewing in the UK as one Labour MP has suggested that Parliament pass what would amount to new blasphemy laws. An exchange in the House of Commons appeared to “open the door” to such legislation, as MP Tahir Ali asked Prime Minister Starmer whether he would commit to legislation in Britain that would criminalize the “desecration” of religious texts. MP Ali’s suggestion mirrors blasphemy laws from most Muslim and Muslim-majority countries that are frequently used to target religious minorities regardless of whether they actually did what they were accused of. The Prime Minister was fairly non-committal in his answer, condemning the desecration of scripture while leaving ambiguous whether he would support legislation to criminalize “Islamophobia.” We here at EXMNA hope he will clarify that freedom of expression means the freedom to criticize belief systems—or, failing that, at least remain non-committal indefinitely.
Persecution Tracker Updates
Our entry on the above-mentioned blasphemy case in Pakistan can be found on our Persecution Tracker here.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Feast on This Week’s Dispatch – A Cornucopia of Insights Awaits!
This week’s Unbelief Brief delivers a highly anticipated update on the murder case of Tahir Naseem, one that stirs mixed emotions. We also cover an attempted honor killing in Washington state and a fashion show in Saudi Arabia.
EXMNA Insights reflects on women’s rights in the wake of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, while the Persecution Tracker provides further updates on the unjust murder of Tahir Naseem.
Unbelief Brief
Four years later, justice is still delayed in the murder case of Tahir Naseem, a US citizen who was lured to Pakistan in 2018 under false pretenses to debate “blasphemous” comments he made on Facebook, only to be arrested and serve two years in prison. Tragically, a 17-year-old assailant, aided and abetted by several individuals within the courthouse, shot Mr. Naseem point-blank in the middle of the blasphemy trial, claiming the Prophet Muhammad appeared in a dream and ordered him to do so. While the gunman was handed a life sentence this week by an anti-terrorism court in Peshawar, his co-conspirators were acquitted despite openly admittingbeing involved in the conspiracy to murder Naseem. These acquittals exemplify how Pakistan’s judicial system continues to short-change victims of blasphemy and apostasy accusations by unevenly and arbitrarily applying the law—and kowtows to violent religious extremism that permeates every facet of Pakistani society.
Meanwhile, in the US: two parents in Lacey, Washington are accused of violently attacking their daughter in an attempted “honor killing”. The parents, Ihsan and Zahraa Ali, had reportedly arranged for their teenage daughter to marry a man in Iraq. Before the daughter could be forced to travel to Iraq for the marriage, she fled her home and was purportedly living in a shelter for her safety. Unfortunately, her parents caught her leaving her high school to board a bus back to the shelter and nearly choked her to death. The girl’s boyfriend managed to intervene and help get her back to safety but not before being assaulted by the parents. The Alis have since been arrested. The incident is an unfortunate reminder that even in Western countries, the Islamic impulse to control and constrict women’s free behavior can rear its ugly and violent head.
Finally, a fashion show in Saudi Arabia featuring performances from the likes of Jennifer Lopez and Celine Dion has caused backlash among conservative Muslims. Aside from the predictable outrage about scantily-clad women, the major point of contention was the fact that models were performing around a large black cube on the stage, which critics said resembled the Kaaba. Thus, the performance was a “gross affront to the Islamic faith,” and the hashtag “We reject the desecration of the Land of the Two Holy Mosques” trended on social media. While both structures are black cubes, they do not much resemble one another beyond that. The reaction from religious zealots, who see blasphemy in everything, is proof of Islam’s relentless effort to control, oppress and enforce submission to an irrational dogma.
EXMNA Insights
Yesterday, November 25th marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Verse 4:34 of the Qur’an, which states that men are “in charge of women” and permits hitting women as a disciplinary measure, creates a framework that fosters impunity for violence against women, including honor killings. The verse explicitly elevates men to a position of authority over women, reinforcing a patriarchal structure that infantilizes women and denies them autonomy. This dynamic is rooted in the notion that men are women’s “protectors,” a term that serves as a euphemism for control. Such interpretations validate systemic violence, from domestic abuse to honor killings, as mechanisms for preserving male dominance and the social order.
Honor killings, a stark manifestation of gendered violence, occur with alarming frequency in Muslim-majority societies. The United Nations estimates that 5,000 women are killed annually worldwide in the name of “honor,” though human rights groups suggest this number is likely much higher. These killings often target women accused of defying prescribed roles, such as choosing their own partners, rejecting forced hijab, or exercising independence in thought and behavior. These actions are perceived as threats to familial and societal honor, a concept intrinsically tied to the control of women’s bodies and choices.
The Qur’anic prescription of male guardianship institutionalizes the subjugation of women. By framing women as dependents whose moral and social conduct must align with male oversight, the verse legitimizes violence as a corrective tool. This not only dehumanizes women but perpetuates a system where their agency is sacrificed at the altar of male-determined honor. The linkage between honor and women’s autonomy underscores a gendered hierarchy in which the freedom of women is inherently destabilizing to the male-dominated order.
Women do not need “protection” that strips them of agency; they need the respect and equality that enable them to define their own lives. True justice requires dismantling the frameworks, religious or cultural, that sanction control and violence under the guise of care. Women deserve the same autonomy and dignity that men are afforded—nothing less.
Persecution Tracker Updates
See a full accounting of the case of Tahir Naseem’s murder, as well as the most recent update detailed above, on our Persecution Tracker here.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
This Week’s Edition Has Arrived
In this week’s Unbelief Brief: Iran is taking a dangerous turn by proposing “hijab clinics” to institutionalize women who defy its dress codes under the guise of psychological treatment. In the U.S., Texas public schools face pressure to adopt a curriculum favoring Christian teachings, blurring the line between church and state. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s arrest of a transgender influencer for alleged blasphemy highlights the country’s growing crackdown on religious dissent.
Unbelief Brief
Iran is becoming increasingly brazen in its prosecution of hijab-related disobedience. Despite the recently-inaugurated president, Masoud Pezeshkian, promising women they would not be “bothered” by the morality police, religious authorities revealed plans for a new “hijab clinic” to treat teenage girls and women with “scientific and psychological treatment for hijab removal.” Pathologizing women who refuse to abide by Islamic dress codes is nothing new in Iran. However, this plan to institutionalize women who defy the hijab is both an alarming and novel assault on Iranian women’s already limited freedoms. Although Mehri Talebi Darestani, Head of the Women and Family Department of the Headquarters for the Promotion of Virtue in Tehran Province, claims that admittance to the clinic is voluntary, the regime’s brutal response to any form of religious dissent says otherwise. Women who refuse to comply with the state’s stringent hijab requirements are routinely incarcerated and institutionalized against their will so there is little doubt that religious authorities won’t begin to forcibly admit women to these clinics in the future.
Meanwhile, in the US, the Texas Board of Education is set to vote to approve a new curriculumfor the state’s public schools—one which would reference and incorporate teachings from the Bible into classroom lessons. The curriculum, currently designed for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, proposes, for example, to teach students about “Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount” during a lesson about the Golden Rule. While the New York Times reports that religion comprises a “relatively small” portion of the overall curriculum’s content, it references Christianity much more often than in previous curricula. Though school districts are not mandated to adopt the new curriculum, they would receive financial incentives for doing so, putting undue pressure on poorer districts to accept the new lesson plans. This example of religious re-encroachment into public life is likely to increase in frequency as conservative state governments are emboldened by a new pro-Christian federal administration.
Finally, Indonesia is drawing international attention over a blasphemy case against Christianity, a rarity for the Muslim-majority country. Ratu Thalisa, a transgender influencer on TikTok, suggested Jesus should shave his head in order to look less like a woman. Thalisa had made the video in response to a subscriber’s suggestion that she should shave her own head since as a transwoman was “really a man.” Thalisa was arrested after an uproar on social media prompted her to post an apology video. Amnesty Indonesia points to this case as an example of the increasing stringency with which Indonesian authorities prosecute blasphemy, with 120 recorded such cases over the last six years.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Back for more? This Week’s Dispatch Has Arrived
Welcome back. This week our Unbelief Brief brings up an issue of hate speech persecuted as blasphemy, along with staggering new statistics on blasphemy-related arrests and imprisonments in Pakistan.
EXMNA Insights discusses World Adoption Day and the place that adoption has, or doesn’t, in Islam.
Finally, our Persecution Tracker takes us to Malaysia and Pakistan.
Unbelief Brief
A recent case in Malaysia highlights ongoing global concerns surrounding blasphemy laws and freedom of expression. A man was arrested after sharing a one-minute video on social media in which he made remarks considered insulting to Islam and suggested violence against Muslims. Authorities subsequently hospitalized him for undisclosed “mental health treatment”. The reason this case is of particular interest is that rather than charge the man for inciting violence against Muslims, Malaysian authorities chose instead to charge him with blasphemy against Islam. This raises serious questions about how authorities claim to balance ensuring public safety with safeguarding religious sentiments in contexts where blasphemy remains criminalized.
In Pakistan, a report from the National Commission for Human Rights reveals a significant increase in blasphemy-related arrests and imprisonments, pointing to a dramatic escalation over the past year. According to the report, 767 individuals were detained on blasphemy charges by mid-year—a marked increase from 213 in 2023, 64 in 2022, and 9 in 2021.
High-profile incidents continue to fuel concern over the country’s strict blasphemy laws and their impact on religious freedom. Recent such incidents include an elderly widow’s eviction after her son was accused of blasphemy, exemplifying the wide-reaching social and legal ramifications for people accused of blasphemy. Civil society efforts to address these issues include the work of organizations like the Alliance Against Blasphemy Politics, which recently held film screenings in Karachi to raise awareness of the laws’ impact. Yet, amid increasing cases, there is a prevailing concern that conditions for religious minorities may be worsening.
Beyond blasphemy-related issues, religious minorities in Pakistan face additional challenges, including forced conversions and marriages. In a recent case, Shakeel Masih, a Christian father, was arrested after attempting to protect his 13-year-old daughter, Roshani Shakeel, from a forced marriage. Local officials forced her conversion to Islam and then falsely registered the marriage with her abductor, claiming she was the legal marriageable age of 18. Roshani then escaped and returned to her father after overhearing one of her abductors planning to sell her into sexual slavery. Following her escape, authorities reportedly sided with the abductors, putting pressure on Masih to disclose Roshani’s location so she could be returned to her “husband”. This case underscores the vulnerabilities that religious minorities face in Pakistan, where such incidents contribute to ongoing concerns over minority rights and legal protections.
EXMNA Insights
World Adoption Day, observed on November 9, highlights the importance of family structures that provide stability and a sense of permanency for children in need. In contrast, Islamdiscourages formal adoption, a stance that has widespread negative impacts on child welfare. This prohibition, rooted in the Quran and the life of Muhammad, severely limits the opportunities for vulnerable children to experience a stable family environment.
Muhammad initially adopted Zayd ibn Harithah, who became known as Zayd ibn Muhammad. Later, however, he annulled this adoption, citing a divine revelation recorded in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:4-5): “Nor has He made your adopted sons your sons.” This verse establishes that adopted children cannot be assimilated into the family lineage, effectively ending formal adoption in Islam.
The catalyst for this prohibition is directly linked to Muhammad’s desire to marry Zaynab bint Jahsh, Zayd’s former wife. His marriage to Zaynab, referenced in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:37), introduced the ruling that adopted sons should not be considered as biological sons. This effectively permitted Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab and set a precedent against treating adopted children as part of the family line, depriving adopted children of the sense of permanency and connection that formal adoption offers. Instead, Islam prescribes kafala, a guardianship system that provides some care but lacks the legal and emotional depth of adoption. This system also varies widely in practice across the Muslim world, leaving orphans and vulnerable children at the mercy of their respective judicial systems and negatively impacting a child’s sense of security.
Another contentious practice is “milk kinship,” where breastfeeding establishes non-biological kinship ties. Muhammad used this practice to create loopholes around family relationships and interactions. In a Sahih Muslim hadith (8:3425), he encouraged a grown man, Salim, to drink breast milk from his adoptive mother so that he would become her mahram, or unmarriageable kin. This workaround is not only perverse but also impractical and lacks the depth of stable family bonds that adoption would provide.
Ultimately, Islam’s prohibition on adoption appears more reflective of Muhammad’s sexual desires than any genuine concern for lineage or family integrity. By forbidding formal adoption, he allowed for a marriage that otherwise would have faced social reproach while limiting opportunities for vulnerable children to experience the stability, belonging, and security of a family.
Persecution Tracker Updates
Full accounts of the recent blasphemy investigation in Malaysia mentioned above, as well as the evicted Pakistani widow and her son, can be found on our Persecution Tracker here and here, respectively.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Dr. Sandra Schlick has the expertise and interest are in Strategic Management. She is Managing Research Methodology and coach Research Projects while having a focus on online training. She supervises M.Sc. theses in Business Information, PhD, and and DBA. theses in Business Management. Her areas of competence can be seen in the “Competency Map.” That is to say, her areas of expertise and experience mapped in a visualization presentation. Schlick’s affiliations are the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, University of Gloucestershire UK, and Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences. Dr. Schlick compares the high-IQ world to a bubble of self-expression, contrasting it with the hierarchical, politically charged academic environment where she faced discrimination as a woman and an external employee. She describes systemic biases, including unequal pay and a lack of rights for external workers, calling it “modern slavery.” Schlick highlights issues like neurodiversity being undervalued, with managers favoring conformity. She reflects on identity, power, and uncertainty in academia and life, emphasizing that these dynamics hinder individual growth and drive power-based relationships.
Keywords: Academic discrimination, gender inequality, high-IQ societies, modern slavery, neurodiversity undervalued, power dynamics, systemic biases.
Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To set the tone for this interview, today, the general context will be opinion grounded in personal experience in Europe, specifically Switzerland, rather than statistical reportage as seen in the World Economic Forum, UN Women, and elsewhere. On face value, Mensa is mostly a male group or a men’s organization in Europe and in Switzerland. What has been your experience with the high-IQ societies and tests?
Dr. Sandra Schlick: I like to make tests when they are posing interesting questions to work on, puzzle. It is kind of a game for me.
Jacobsen: Has your experience in the high-IQ world been much the same as in the academic world? Although, from my understanding, you have more experience in the academic world in Switzerland.
Schlick: The high-IQ world is different, it is kind of a bubble you can be yourself while in the academic world you need to fill a role.
Jacobsen: In your experience, what is the role of power in the concept of gender relations?
Schlick: It is related also with the hierarchical role in a company, very often the ones with lower level tasks are the women and they are not treated the same as those on higher ranks, even though they might be smarter and more innovative.
Jacobsen: How are prestige, authority, and powerful positions, experienced in Academia for you?
Schlick: I gave up to hope to excel a high position. I have an interesting job and I like most of the time what I do. I would have loved to get a leadership position but I was always bounced away from other “aspiring” leaders, also from political games. I do not like that and I do not play their games. I tell what I think and they do like it as long as it is in line what they want and what is good for the ego of the higher positions, but the moment I come with something logical that is against them, well, then they do not like me so much. This might be the reason I am seen as difficult. Honesty is difficult.
Jacobsen: How has discrimination in the academic world played a role in professional life for you?
Schlick: It has always played a pivotal role. Not only due to hierarchy but also due to being an “external” which means working not on a permanent contract. The institutes make a lot of money hiring externals and with that they can also shift them as they wish. As external you do not have any right other than doing your job – which is your duty. If you do not do what they want, you can go. I would call that modern slavery on the high skilled.
Jacobsen: If so, how does this discrimination manifest?
Schlick: See above. As a long-lasting slave of many institutes and also meanwhile a permanent in one, I think discrimination can change its face and it followed me wherever I went. I was discriminated as being female during my first education (being the sole female machine construct engineer student in my class), later in company where the job names differ for males and females (and the females get less money for the same job content with another label) to going to external docent duties and feeling as slave. I learned to work for my money and to adapt and shut up in many places.
Jacobsen: How does diversity, including neurodiversity, affect the academic world in personal
Schlick: I would say that neurodiversity is not really the trait it is looked for. Managers look for diverse teams but upon analysing their teams you see that they are just showing the same type of people. The “yes sayers” are the most wanted among everybody. Be quiet and make your work, don’t ask the difficult questions.
Jacobsen: How have gender, identity, power, time, and uncertainty, played a role in academic life for you, as a set of concepts (re: Hofstedte, G.)?
Schlick: I expanded above quite much about inequality and slavery in a modern sense for the highly educated. But I think it is also manifest in every part of our life, be it that we encounter religious people who life according to the old or new testament, be it that we have power relations manifested in neighborhoods or be it in our friendships and teams where we seek to find our places. I just think that our identity cannot fully evolve among others. Also, I think that uncertainty has increased with the many global conflicts and crises, which makes it difficult to interact – the more uncertain people are the more they tend towards power relationships. If you do not wish that, you need to take your distance.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Schlick.
Schlick: Thank you Scott for the opportunity to talk about power and hierarchies.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 1). Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (December 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Sandra Schlick on Representation, Women, Academia, and High-IQ [Internet]. 2024 Dec; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sandra-schlick.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Nicola Young Jackson and I used to be on the same team at Conatus News out of the United Kingdom. I decided to catch up. Jackson discussed her transition from leading the International Humanist Youth Movement to becoming a mother, working in tech startups, and eventually qualifying as a funeral celebrant. She reflected on her experiences conducting her first funeral and balancing motherhood, work, and personal growth. Jacobsen shared insights into his family’s experiences with death, humour at funerals, and running for fitness. They also touched on parenting, humanism, and genealogy.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Longtime friends, it’s been a bit. So, how many years has it been?
Nicola Young Jackson: At least seven. So, it’s been a long time since we last spoke. That would have been in 2018. Oh, wait—yes, it’s been a while.
Jacobsen: I’ve reached out to some people, either from the group, writers, or even editors who were part of it, to see what’s new. What happens when people come together for a common objective for a year or two and then go their separate ways? So, from 2018 to 2024, what have you been up to?
Jackson: When we met, I was the International Humanist Youth Movement president. I’ve since left that behind. I planned to volunteer as a humanist chaplain, providing prison pastoral support. After volunteering 40 hours a week for so long, I’d have so much free time.
People in prison are often the loneliest. I worked for a helpline; the prisoners were the most distressed callers. I completed the course and qualified, but getting into prison chaplaincy takes much work. They don’t even reply to messages.
At the same time, I was also trying to get a baby. My partner pointed out that after all the effort I had made to get into prison chaplaincy, they might turn me away if I became pregnant. So, I gave up that goal entirely and focused on my career. I worked in marketing, transitioned into communications, and soon after, I got pregnant.
My life became centred around that, and pregnancy was tough. I was constantly sick for the entire nine months. Then, not long after, I got pregnant again and was sick for another nine months. During this time, I worked with my partner on a tech startup for marketing software.
It has been successful, generating more than £1,000,000 in revenue, which we’re pleased with. We also launched another venture, a sales software startup, which we’ve been promoting. But honestly, I’ve been feeling a bit bored with my role. Even though the industry is fascinating, our software is incredible. I love attending conferences and seeing the excitement in people’s eyes when they realize they need it; my role hasn’t been as engaging.
I’ve taken a back seat to allow flexibility in taking time off when my children are sick or during school holidays. I’m no longer dealing with clients; I manage the backend operations—finance, HR, compliance, and many contracts, which I can do anytime.
After six years of this, I needed a change, so I qualified as a funeral celebrant. Last Friday, I conducted my first funeral. It was an amazing experience.
Like you, Scott, I love learning about people. It was wonderful because the man was so interesting and well-loved. He had lived a long, happy life and had faced tough times, but everyone who wrote about him shared the same heartfelt sentiments.
He was kind, always gave his time, and wanted to help. I thought it was lovely but was very sad when I delivered it. I couldn’t look at his family when I read their words because they were all devastated.
But he was old, and every great life has to end. But I thought, yes, it’s that privilege to be part of that and part of his last celebration. Since we call it a celebration of life, this wasn’t in a crematorium. It was in a lovely function room, and nobody else was there.
They—which is a nice way to do it because the focus is on life. There was an older woman, a friend of mine; she was in her sixties at the time. She’s probably in her seventies now. She didn’t have the formal qualifications to do these types of services. Still, she was able to attend some deaths—not the funerals themselves, but the actual deaths at the bedside—because that’s what the person wanted, to have her or others there, taking part in that process, the final moments of life for the person. So, she also felt a great privilege to participate in that, though I can’t imagine it being easy.
Jacobsen: Our family watched, on the Jacobsen side, Grandpa die together because we knew he was sick. His body was attacking itself. So, he was on a machine, and we watched the machine slowly turn off for about four hours, from 8 AM to noon. Then, when noon hit, that was it. That was… it’s a powerful experience and a moment of reflection on many things.
The funeral path is probably meaningful for serving the community and others. You’re right that it’s about learning about people and, more fundamentally, about pursuing something meaningful to you. It’s a wise life choice. Yes, you get to do the writing, learn about someone, and then try to represent them as best you can.
Jackson: And they said I had done a good job getting his essence, which is what I aimed for.
Jacobsen: Are these services volunteer or paid services?
Jackson: They’re paid. I started with a low rate. Normally, memorials cost around £300 to £400, and I charged £200 for my first one, just in case I didn’t do well. So yes, it’s a paid job. Some people are successful enough to do two daily and make a lot. I am curious how they managed it because writing took me hours and hours. Then there’s the practice.
Jacobsen: After a certain time, do you think you start finding categories of what people want for a funeral? They may have expedited processes for more skeletal things, and then you put some meat and life into them.
Jackson: The thoughts on life and death—there’s a structure that humanists choose. So, thoughts on life and death are tailored for the person. Your thoughts will differ for a child versus someone in their sixties or nineties.
Jacobsen: But once you’ve got the wording, do you have the intro and the description of humanism prepared beforehand? And then you edit it for the person, right?
Jackson: Yes.
Jacobsen: What was the feeling, before even entering that environment, of people giving an in memoriam for a deeply loved person? Being a humanist, helping with funeral services, and doing some public good for the Commons in a humanistic way is an abstraction in many ways; it’s very different from being at the helm during that portion of the in-person service. When you finally walk into that space, it’s a much different experience, especially compared to hearing a loved one pass. When you walk into that space, things change. It’s no longer an abstraction.
Jackson: Yes. For this family, I didn’t meet them in advance. I talked to them online and over email. That was the thing I was most nervous about. My mentor called it “intruding on grief.”
When I see a family in grief, I’m usually good at automatically mirroring people’s emotions without effort. But this is the one time when you can’t. They might be sitting there sobbing, but I am not usually the one who handles sitting there sobbing with them. However, you can’t be completely cold or put up a barrier.
So it’s about finding that middle ground. But everyone who knows me would say, “I’ve never seen you behave weirdly in any social situation; you’ll be fine.” I thought, “I can’t even think of a time I’ve behaved strangely.” One of my neighbours, who I’m not close friends with, had some trauma. When she told me, I immediately cried.
A few days later, I asked her how she was, and I cried again. But I didn’t have to be professional in that situation. When she initially told me the upsetting news, I wasn’t expecting it—I was putting the bins out. Suddenly, it was like, “Whoa, that’s a real weight on me.” But in this case, you’re prepared; you know what you’re going into. It’s sad that even if someone’s death is a release after a long illness, it’s still sad. Even when people have been sick for a long time, and the suffering finally ends, there’s still that sadness because the person they loved is gone.
Jacobsen: What was the humour from the family like to add a bit of levity to the moment? I know my grandfather’s story but want to hear yours first.
Jackson: Yes, they wanted it to be mostly fun, and it was. There was much humour. I’m still determining how much confidential stuff I can share, but this: his job was important to him, and some people there wrote a funny poem about him. I practiced that poem over and over again because it was amazing. It was written by people he worked with, making everyone laugh.
I also used in-jokes from the family often in the service. They had their humour and memories that I incorporated, which lightened the mood.
There were quite a few things I thought might be in-jokes, but I wasn’t sure, so I kept the wording, and people laughed. One of the daughters had a name that could be pronounced differently. It turned out hers was pronounced a third way. But I knew to check, so I did when I mentioned it, and they said, “Hi, yes. We love hearing all the different silly pronunciations.”
I said it right five times, but on the sixth time, I got it wrong, and the whole room laughed. Then, I got it right for the rest of the service. But I feel like it’s that release—grief builds up pressure, and humour provides that release. So, humour is important at a funeral in certain contexts.
When a child or baby dies, there’s no humour in that. But in this case, we could joke and laugh about all the funny quirks of the person’s personality, and that humour became a release from the trauma and grief.
Jacobsen: Years ago, they asked for the last person to give a speech for my grandfather’s funeral on the Jacobsen side. I wasn’t planning on speaking, but they had one more spot, so I said, “Fine, I’ll do it.”
I got up in classic funeral attire–the classic look—black dress shoes, black dress pants, black blazer, black tie, and white dress shirt. My hair was combed over—what’s it called? The ivy cut. I had my glasses on, and back then, they were a bit more square—like Superman or Clark Kent glasses.
So I get up there. The talks had been very dreary, with people on the verge of tears, and this was the pillar of the family we were mourning. My first line was, “All looks to the contrary; I did not just return from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.” There was a huge laugh. Then another laugh from the back, and I hear, “Jesus, Scotty!” The tension in the room immediately released. It was a gamble, but it worked.
How did you feel the room to know that humour would work, even in small talk with people, to make it more comfortable?
Jackson: Walking in felt weird because everyone had written their thoughts, and I was reading their words. One guy, who normally didn’t show emotion, had written, “Since you were taken ill, I’ve cried so, so many times. You wouldn’t believe.” He was their son-in-law. Another son-in-law wrote, “If I were to be born again and could pick someone to be my father, it would be you.”
These were beautiful sentiments; everyone was kind and welcoming, but I knew they hurt so much. It felt strange. My friend came with me because it was my first time, and she’s a photographer but also does video work.
They asked if I could find someone to video the service. I pointed them toward my friend, who gave them a good price and said she could be there for me. That was nice.
Jacobsen: Do people know that you will be reading their words beforehand?
Jackson: Yes. They usually ask. One person decided at the last minute that I would read her words, which was the right choice because it was very upsetting.
Jacobsen: So for people who know they’ve given you their words to speak on their behalf, do you think that gives them extra comfort in being more open about their sentiments?
Jackson: Yes, it does. It allows them to grieve properly because the service is about grief and the beginning of closure, the start of the process. It’s a very important part of that process, especially with a humanist funeral, where it’s a celebration of life, and there isn’t any prayer. Everything in the service is focused on the individual—the songs and the poems that remind people of them.
If someone is going to read, they might be worrying throughout the service, panicking: “Am I going to be in the right state to read this?” They can’t fully let their emotions flow. That’s why it’s good to have those speaking go early on. In our training, they said if there’s anyone younger, they should speak first, but that applies to anyone, no matter their age.
I started with the introduction, a forward, and thoughts on life and death. Then, his daughter spoke, and I took over from there.
Jacobsen: Have you encountered situations where someone started reading but needed you to finish speaking for them?
Jackson: That’s quite common, but I’ve only done one service so far, and she did it beautifully. She didn’t need any help.
Jacobsen: Outside of funeral services, what else is new? How’s family life? Are you still looking for humanistic or humanist schools in the UK?
Jackson: Yes. Being a mother is… well, I fail at many things, but being a mother comes naturally to me despite how I make life difficult for myself. I always take the long way around. And yes, being a mother was so easy for me. I had difficult pregnancies, but the birth was so easy—ridiculously easy. I didn’t need pain relief. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, was challenging.
But, yes, my instincts as a mother have always seemed right, and I’ve been so self-assured. In contrast, other mothers I know are always second-guessing themselves. I do second-guess myself sometimes, but it’s more about choosing between a range of options that could all be right. For example, what’s the appropriate punishment if my children are naughty? One school of thought says explaining what was wrong is better, but what punishments can you give?
At one point, my eldest stole some chocolate and ate it in bed, getting chocolate everywhere. So the punishment was that she didn’t get the cake or treat we had promised her. She accepted that. But I don’t punish them much. I’ve never gotten angry with them.
I’m lucky—they’re good kids. My eldest is six now, and she’s an angel. Everyone describes her as smiley and happy. She loves playing with friends and working hard. My partner passed me her homework, and she got excited to do it. My youngest just started school.
She’s quite sporty and a little cheekier than her sister but still well-behaved. They both have loads of energy and are very talkative, which they get from me. My worries about being a mother were tied to being an extrovert. I was concerned about how I would support them if they were introverts, especially when making friends. I’ve had shy friends, and while I know how to talk to them, I wasn’t sure how to guide them through that. I would tell them, “Go talk.” So I was worried that if I had a child very different from me, I wouldn’t know how to be the right support.
But they’re both extroverts, so that’s not an issue. They’re great and happy, and I love that part of motherhood.
Jacobsen: How’s it going with school? Are you still looking for humanist schools in the UK?
Jackson: School-wise, in my village, there are two schools. We need to be in the catchment area for both of them. My eldest first went to a school up the road, which was lovely. They weren’t holding acts of Christian worship, even though that’s required by law in the UK, which made me happy. Then she got into one of the schools in our village—one Christian, the other non-Christian, and she got into the non-Christian school. Now, both of my kids go there.
I find it fascinating that they have friends from almost every nationality and religion except Christianity. Because they attend a Christian school, they’re exposed to many different backgrounds. Both of them have close friends who are Hindu. They also have friends who are Muslim and Chinese. There are quite a few Spanish kids, too. Strangely, they don’t have any close Christian friends, but I’m not too worried about it.
The vicar comes into the school often, so they learn about Christianity, and they have a Christian grandma. It’s perfect because the best way to raise atheist children is to expose them to lots of religions.
Jacobsen: That’s right—an Isaac Asimov quote or paraphrase: “You become a Christian when someone reads the Bible to you. You become an atheist when you read the Bible yourself.”
A similar sentiment. So, how was that transition? From being mostly at home until they were four years old and then suddenly starting school—how did that go?
Jackson: You must detach a bit because they will be away for so long during the day. They both went to the nursery beforehand. The year before, Emma went to nursery on the school grounds, so we would all go to school together and pick up simultaneously. The entrance to her nursery is four meters away from the entrance to her current classroom.
The transition was easy for Emma. Most children struggle with energy when they start school and feel tired, but that hasn’t been the case for her. That’s because she knew so many of the children already. We’ve lived in this village her whole life, and she knew the children from nursery and the siblings of her older sister’s friends. She also knew the building and the school grounds, which greatly helped.
I put them in the nursery early because I wanted to return to work. Amy started at two and a half months old, but only for two short days a week. Then, I increased it to three short days and slowly made the days longer based on what I felt comfortable with. It didn’t feel like such a big change for me when they started school. And because they’re both extroverted and happy, I knew they wouldn’t be sitting at school crying. I knew they’d be making friends and having fun.
Jacobsen: What have you gained from your time in humanist leadership? You were part of the leadership of the largest youth humanist group in the world. You were involved in a progressive movement of humanists, atheists, and secularists. How do those experiences in your intellectual and professional history have helped your current life?
Jackson: That’s a good question. It may not have helped because those intellectual conversations aren’t ones you can have as a mother. With mom friends, your conversations don’t go deep because you have children around. It’s fascinating how friendships develop—you might go on 20 playdates with someone and spend 60 hours together, but still not know much about them. You’re wondering, “What makes them tick?” I know about their children but don’t get into deeper conversations with them.
Now that my children are a little older, my mom’s friends are starting to suggest going out for drinks, trying to build deeper friendships. But I still need to learn about some people’s philosophies and politics. We don’t have the chance to have those kinds of discussions. It’s a weird transition from being respected for your brain and sharing thoughts and ideas to helping each other with, “Who remembered to bring enough nappies?” or, “Who’s got the snacks?” I could improve at bringing snacks!
There’s much philosophy in child-rearing, too. I thought I would be a strict parent because I’m the type of person who schedules everything. I now realize I probably have ADHD, though I tend to over-schedule everything. I have a whiteboard here where I categorize tasks, and everything is planned. I never have a free moment, but that helps me avoid many issues others face. So, I schedule everything in my life. However, when it came to having children, I wasn’t into the idea of strict bedtimes, nap times, or schedules. Instead, I preferred to read the child—if they’re tired today, they get a long nap. If they’re full of energy, we’ll skip the nap or have it later.
If they’re tired, I think, “Maybe they’re getting sick; I’ll keep an eye on them.” If they’re wired, we’ll have a massive dance party instead of putting them to bed. I realize now that many of my parenting instincts align with how you deal with children who have ADHD. I instinctively think, “They have energy, so let’s burn it off,” instead of, “Let’s have a warm bath, massage them, and read some calming stories.” No—if they have energy, we’re running around first!
It ended up being more of an attachment parenting style. I thought I’d be the kind of parent who puts their child in their room early. The NHS recommends having the baby sleep in a cot next to you for six months and then move them to their room. Cosleeping in the UK is considered dangerous. The advice is basically, “If you want your child to die, you sleep.” I know the rest of the world cosleeps, but it’s seen as something only terrible parents do here.
I remember when my first baby wasn’t well, and I was so tired that I fell asleep with her in my bed. I felt so awful about it and told some moms at swimming, and they all said, “We all cosleep with our babies. It’s fine.” After that, I started doing it more, and it was fine because my eldest was a happy baby. But my second was born a week before the COVID lockdown, and she wasn’t well—she screamed constantly. No doctors would see her or even talk to me. She only slept, literally, with her head in my armpit, so I coslept with her.
I say “slept,” but you can’t sleep when you have a newborn in your armpit. Then her older sister realized her little sister was sleeping, so she also wanted to. I coslept with both of them for a year, which seems so hippie-like, but now I’m a massive advocate. I tell all new moms it’s completely fine to cosleep. I’m a deep sleeper, but you never roll on them because you know they’re there. The only people who have accidents are usually on drugs or alcohol.
I know someone who works at A&E, and she says it happens. But the rest of the world cosleeps with their children—why are English people so cruel and put their crying babies in a separate room?
I think being able to read research was helpful, too, especially when it came to breastfeeding. The phrase “breast is best” isn’t necessarily true. In the UK, for instance, the care can be quite patchy. I had stitches after giving birth, but once you’re discharged from the hospital, no one is willing to check them. Your doctor won’t look at them because they’re from the hospital, and the hospital won’t either. There’s been much news lately about the gaps in maternity care in the UK.
However, regarding breastfeeding, they’ll come to your house 24/7 if you need help. There are 24-hour helplines, and every baby group has a lactation specialist to assist you. It’s pushed so heavily—leaflet after leaflet and constant encouragement. But where is this money coming from? Why is there funding for breastfeeding and not for other areas?
Who benefits from this? The research only partially supports some of the claims they make. For instance, they say breastfeeding increases a child’s IQ. So, if I don’t breastfeed, does that mean I’m going to make my child less intelligent? When you look at socioeconomic groups, the women who breastfeed tend to have more money because they can afford to stay home and not return to work. So, a higher IQ is often linked to better financial situations, better resources, better diet, and better living conditions.
I’ve never found solid evidence to support many of the claims they make. I suspect breastfeeding advocacy keeps women at home because they say you should breastfeed exclusively for the first 12 months, especially for the first six months. However, only 1% of women in Britain breastfeed exclusively for six months. So, I wonder, which organizations—maybe religious ones—are behind this strong push to encourage women to stay home and breastfeed?
It’s also incredibly time-consuming. Early on, you’re feeding constantly—on, off, on again. They sleep, you change their nappy, and then they’re back on the breast. It takes a huge amount of time. I compare breastfeeding to running a 5-kilometre race—it tires you out, but you can keep going. However, you become completely exhausted when you do this for the sixth time in a day. It drains your energy, and you can’t eat enough calories to make up for it.
Anyway, that was a nice tangent! I’ll be mindful of time.
Jacobsen: What has being a parent to two daughters taught you about humanism in practice?
Jackson: Oh, I’m not sure.
Jacobsen: Or what has it taught you about human nature?
Jackson: Yes, I’ve been fascinated by their relationship and how, early on, they think about the other sibling first. For example, they’ll say, “I made this thing at school for my sister.” I have a brother, and we’re close, but the closeness between my daughters seems even stronger. It’s only during the school holidays when they spend a crazy amount of time together, that they start fighting. But for the most part, they get along well.
Although everything people say about boys also applies to my girls—everything becomes a weapon!
My girls were at dance class, and they were given ribbons. They immediately started hitting each other in the face with them, giggling the whole time. We went to a boys’ birthday party, and all the boys were wrestling on the floor. Even though they were much younger, my girls immediately joined in and started wrestling. So they’re rough-and-tumble girls, and I’ve gone with it. But people tend to buy them pink things and dolls rather than cars.
I’m the only one who’s ever bought them cars or Lego. Even when they get Lego, it’s unicorn Lego, not the regular kind. It’s fascinating, though—my eldest is choosing to be girly. She loves sparkly pink rainbow unicorns, while my youngest sometimes refuses to wear dresses. I don’t know—it’s interesting. They’re still little, and there’s still a lot more to learn about raising girls in today’s world.
Jacobsen: No, this is great! It’s a good catch-up story.
Jackson: Yes. I also do genealogy and running.
Jacobsen: You’ve got three minutes—go! What’s up with genealogy and running?
Jackson: Running is great for parents because it’s time-efficient. I love it for that reason. I’d go out in the morning while everyone was asleep. It’s a good way to feel healthy and gives me energy. For me, it’s also self-medicating for ADHD, though I didn’t realize it at the time. As a child, I used to run before school, and it was never about being fit, healthy, or thin—it was just something I did.
Genealogy is amazing. Everyone has a story. I found out my grandfather was adopted entirely through DNA testing. It’s fascinating. My extended family has many stories about people finding out they’re part of this huge network from DNA tests. They see the results and think, “I don’t even know half of these people.” It’s cool.
Jacobsen: Yes, that sounds interesting. Nicola, it was nice to catch up. I appreciate it.
Jackson: Yes, thank you! It was nice to catch up. Let’s keep in touch.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, December 1). Post-Conatus News Meander 3: Nicola Young Jackson’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Post-Conatus News Meander 3: Nicola Young Jackson’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Said Najib Asil, president and CEO of Free Speech Hub, has steadfastly advocated for Afghan journalists and the broader cause of press freedom. Founded in 2019, the organization, after facing disruptions, resumed its vital work from Toronto on May 1, 2023. Its mission is multifaceted: connecting Afghan journalists across the globe, documenting the precarious conditions of the press under Taliban rule, and offering crucial mentorship and support systems, including mental health services.
Despite the Taliban’s draconian restrictions and the immense economic pressures bearing down on the media landscape, many journalists continue their work, undeterred by the considerable risks. They face a litany of threats—imprisonment, harassment, and violence—with executions becoming a grim reality for some. Reports paint a harrowing picture of torture and other forms of targeted abuse, underscoring the perilous conditions journalists endure to tell their stories.
For Asil, Free Speech Hub’s work represents more than advocacy; it is a lifeline. The organization remains committed to safeguarding journalists and championing their right to report freely, no matter the odds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One year later, we’re speaking again with Said Najib Asil, who now serves as the president and CEO of Free Speech Hub.
To start, could you outline the foundation of Free Speech Hub? What does it offer for Afghan journalists—whether they fled the country abruptly or managed to leave lawfully before the Taliban’s return to power?
Pictured: Said Najib Asil. (Instagram)
Said Najib Asil: Thank you so much. Free Speech Hub is a non-profit organization that supports Afghan journalists and advocates for press freedom and freedom of speech in Afghanistan. The organization was established in 2019 in Afghanistan with a board of 15 media managers. Unfortunately, after August 15, 2021, and the fall of Kabul, all members of Free Speech Hub’s board of directors left and relocated to different countries.
After three years, we resumed our operations in Toronto. Today, we focus on the state of media in Afghanistan and the journalists now in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey. Approximately 7,000 Afghan journalists left the country after the fall of Kabul and are currently living in various countries around the world.
Through Free Speech Hub, we are working to unite these journalists and create a more strategic response to support freedom of speech and expression in Afghanistan. We are in touch with journalists within Afghanistan and in neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran, as well as in countries like Canada, the United States, and European countries. The situation has drastically changed since August 15, 2021, when the Taliban regained power for the second time.
Before that, after 2001, when the U.S. and around 40 other countries were present in Afghanistan, the country’s media and freedom of speech situation was significantly better. Over the past two decades, over 600 media outlets, including TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers, were established across the 34 provinces of Afghanistan, engaging around 10.000 to 12,000 journalists nationwide. Based on surveys conducted by international organizations, Afghanistan was considered one of the most accessible countries in terms of freedom of expression and press freedom, outperforming China, Pakistan, India, and Iran.
These were significant achievements for Afghanistan’s media over the past two decades. However, since the Taliban regained power, more than 7,000 journalists have left the country. Ninety percent of Afghan women journalists lost their jobs or can no longer pursue their passion. The Taliban now use the media outlets that are still operating in Kabul and other provinces as propaganda tools for their agenda. The concept of free speech or press freedom no longer exists in Afghanistan. This is the dire reality under the Taliban regime. Over the past three years, more than 300 Afghan journalists have been beaten, harassed, and tortured.
This is the overall bigger picture for Afghanistan. Through Free Speech Hub, we are in touch with journalists based in Kabul and other provinces. We document what’s happening in the country daily and provide reports on what’s happening regarding freedom of speech and expression in Afghanistan.
We also work with journalists in countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, where around 700 Afghan journalists reside. They still await long-term protection and resettlement from various countries and organizations. We work with these journalists, advocate on their behalf, and connect them with international support organizations for journalists.
We are drafting letters to these organizations and working with embassies and ambassadors of these countries to explore how we can bring these journalists to safety and secure long-term protection. In countries like Canada and others, we are working with journalists, especially those connected to media organizations established over the past three years. We provide courses and mentorship programs and connect them with mental health professionals to support them. After arriving in new countries, many of these journalists need help to continue their work in journalism.
Some of them have taken on labor-intensive jobs, such as working in construction, driving for Uber, or other service roles. However, we are trying to reconnect them with media organizations in various countries.
Over the past ten months, we have seen several achievements in Canada. We organized three conferences in Toronto. We held a conference in partnership with the Dashty Foundation in the Canadian Parliament, where we invited MPs, senators, and ambassadors from the Netherlands and Australia, as well as permanent residents of Canada, the Canadian ambassadors to the United Nations, and Afghan journalist activists for a one-day conference. We highlighted the current situation in Afghanistan and urged the Canadian government and other countries to extend support for the future of Afghanistan.
Through these conferences, we aim to push governments to provide safety for Afghan media and journalists, especially given the daily challenging circumstances that many journalists face. These are some initiatives we are working on through Free Speech Hub.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned reports of torture—specifically 300 documented cases. What forms of torture are these journalists enduring? What kinds of stories are emerging?
Asil: We have documented 300 cases through international media support organizations. When we connect with journalists inside Afghanistan, they share that the Taliban imposes strict restrictions on critical topics that journalists are prohibited from covering, such as security issues, the national budget, and stories involving women, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech. These issues are among journalists’ biggest concerns; they cannot work or report on them independently.
When some journalists are reporting stories for exiled media from Afghanistan, the Taliban, along with security organizations, imprison these journalists and exercise complete control over them. We have received several accounts detailing very different experiences, where journalists have shared their stories and even pictures showing the torture and beatings they endured at the hands of the Taliban.
Jacobsen: What about executions?
Asil: We do not have any specific cases involving journalists, but overall, executions are occurring daily in different parts of the country.
Jacobsen: Some courageous individuals—names withheld for their safety—are practicing what can only be described as guerrilla journalism, operating covertly within Afghanistan to evade Taliban surveillance. What words of encouragement would you share with those risking their lives under a theocratic regime? These individuals, whether secular or moderate, continue to uphold the principles of a free press.
Asil: As I mentioned, Afghan journalists have accomplished a great deal over the past two decades. Many journalists inside the country want to cover different stories freely. However, the Taliban imposed extensive restrictions, preventing them from doing so.
Despite this, some journalists continue to report, albeit in secrecy. They must hide their identities and cannot openly oppose the Taliban. Suppose the Taliban identifies any critical reports from a media organization. In that case, they immediately contact the news manager, the media organization, and the journalist directly, often resulting in the journalist’s immediate imprisonment. This makes the situation highly challenging for journalists.
Many journalists want to continue their work but need help overcoming severe obstacles. Additionally, most journalists are under significant financial pressure. They need employment to cover their daily expenses, pay bills, and support their families. The media industry often becomes their only viable job option, regardless of the content the media organizations produce and distribute to the public.
Journalists remain in the profession not only for their passion but out of economic necessity, to receive a salary that helps sustain their lives and those of their families. This financial situation is another significant challenge Afghan journalists face. Conversations with journalists reveal that they understand and value the principles they stand for but acknowledge that current conditions make it impossible to uphold them fully.
Pushing journalism in Afghanistan means addressing these economic realities. Salaries are vital for journalists to pay their bills and support their families. The financial strain compounds their challenges, making the profession difficult and dangerous.
In an era where global attention spans are fleeting, Mykhailo Tymuliak, a former reporter for Kontakt, a television program based in Canada targeting Ukrainians living abroad, emphasizes the vital role of the Ukrainian Canadian diaspora in keeping Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression at the forefront of international discourse.
As media coverage dwindles, Tymuliak discusses the pressing need for continued awareness, international support, and community building among Ukrainians in Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I returned from Ukraine on September 14th. This marked my most extended trip to the country and my second visit since the full-scale invasion began. The journey lasted just under a month, taking me to locations as close as 10 kilometers from the Russian border. One of the farthest points I reached was Sumy, a city whose proximity to Kursk made the tension palpable. However, we had to turn back, warned that proceeding further would be too dangerous—an entirely reasonable caution given the circumstances.
Experiences like these tend to linger. For many who leave such intense environments, returning home often brings a sense of decompression. The nervous system, taut from constant vigilance, begins to relax. Only then does clarity emerge, allowing for a deeper reflection on events that are too overwhelming to process fully in real time.
How vital is it for the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada to document personal stories, foster community ties, and report on the ongoing challenges faced by their people?
Mykhailo Tymuliak: The task of the Ukrainian diaspora is to draw attention to Ukraine abroad. After nearly three years of full-scale invasion, many in the Western world have started to forget about the war, and media coverage has dwindled. The diaspora must remind the world that the war is ongoing, the Russian invasion continues, and their crimes are escalating. Ukrainians in Canada are actively working to maintain global attention and raise awareness about Ukraine.
Pictured: Mykhailo Tymuliak. (Facebook)
Jacobsen: With numerous conflicts around the globe—from the Israel-Hamas crisis to the overlooked struggles in Sudan—why should the Russo-Ukrainian war command our focus? What makes this war so crucial amid a world of competing crises?
Tymuliak: The Russian war against Ukraine is the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, involving immense military resources, advanced technologies like tanks and drones, and numerous international players. Russia’s allies, including Iran and China, provide support, while Ukraine receives backing from many Western nations, emphasizing the global importance of defending democracy and sovereignty. This war is uniquely clear-cut, with Russia as the aggressor and Ukraine defending itself.
In contrast, the Israel-Hamas conflict is more nuanced, with Western nations occasionally urging Israel to avoid actions that could escalate the situation. While the suffering of civilians in Palestine is tragic, Israel’s actions are driven by its security concerns.
Focusing on the Russo-Ukrainian war remains critical because Russia and its allies threaten democracy and aim to reshape the global order. Maintaining global attention on Ukraine is vital to countering these broader threats.
Jacobsen: Beyond the impact of war, your work in filmmaking stands out. What kinds of films have you created, and what topics have you explored? Preserving and revitalizing arts and culture often holds immense significance for diasporas like the Kurdish community in Canada, which I’m familiar with. Do you see parallels in your own work?
Tymuliak: As a journalist, I cover topics related to the war in Ukraine, volunteering, and political processes around Ukraine. I created several stories highlighting individuals with unique ties to Ukraine. One was about a man of Ukrainian descent whose great-grandfather emigrated to Canada. Although he had no strong connection to Ukraine and had never visited before the war, the 2014 annexation of Crimea compelled him to act. In 2015, he joined the Ukrainian army as a tank operator. He served for several years and eventually chose to stay and live in Ukraine. After the full-scale invasion, he rejoined the fight until retiring at 60.
Another story featured a former police officer from Montreal, originally of French roots, who had no prior connection to Ukraine but felt a duty to support it. As a drone operator, he trained Ukrainian soldiers and participated in combat during multiple deployments. His expertise was crucial in countering Russian tanks on the battlefield.
Both individuals emphasized that the war in Ukraine is not as distant from Canada as it might seem. They believed Canada has a vested interest in Ukraine’s success and highlighted the importance of Canadian support. Sharing these stories is meaningful because they inspire awareness and action for Ukraine’s cause.
A woman stands near her damaged home in the village of Novoselivka, Chernihiv Oblast, Ukraine. (Oleksandr Ratushniak/UNDP Ukraine)
Jacobsen: How do Ukrainians generally view President Putin’s justifications for the aggression—rhetoric that has been widely condemned? Claims about neo-Nazis, though less prominent now, were once central to his narrative. In a notable interview with far-right television personality Tucker Carlson, he even delivered an extended monologue about history. Based on your experience and conversations, how do Ukrainians typically respond to such narratives?
Tymuliak: We should critically examine what is true and what is fabricated. Putin often seeks to justify his actions in Ukraine through distorted historical narratives. For instance, when he told Tucker Carlson that he invaded Ukraine because 400 years ago, someone signed a contract making Ukraine part of Russia, it was absurd. Surprisingly, such claims still find an audience in the Western world.
The interview with Carlson elicited mixed reactions in the West. On the one hand, many laughed at Putin’s outlandish reasoning, exposing how detached he is from reality. On the other hand, it’s concerning that some in the West still entertain the idea that Putin’s actions have any logical basis or that the war could have valid justification.
Ukrainians generally view Putin’s justifications as nonsensical and disconnected from reality. His reliance on vague, centuries-old references highlights the irrationality of his actions, making it clear to many in the West that his reasoning lacks any credible foundation.
Jacobsen: I’ve come across diverse perspectives among Ukrainians about the practical realities of ending the war, even among everyday citizens. Some hold the hope that international condemnation will eventually translate into tangible outcomes. For instance, the AES11-1 resolution at the UN General Assembly saw 141 member states opposing the full-scale invasion, demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops and the return of annexed territories. To put this into perspective, the annexed regions represent a substantial portion—between 18% and 20%—of Ukraine’s land. This viewpoint reflects a broader reliance on the mechanisms of international diplomacy.
But other opinions diverge significantly. I spoke with a younger couple whose outlook surprised me. While they were critical of both Putin and the aggression, they expressed frustration with Ukraine’s political landscape even before the war. Their discontent stretches back to the annexation of Crimea, which some call the “lighter invasion.” Now, amidst the ongoing conflict, they find themselves disengaged. Their focus has shifted toward simply living their lives, even if it means reluctantly accepting the loss of territory seized in violation of international law.
These voices contrast with the majority, which aligns with the international consensus. Yet, this minority—willing to prioritize peace over reclaiming land—raises difficult questions. How do we reconcile such pragmatism with the principles of justice and sovereignty? And what do these perspectives reveal about the psychological toll of an unending war?
Tymuliak: Throughout history, global conflicts often began with a surge of volunteers willing to defend their land and national interests. Many are prepared to make sacrifices in the early stages of war—within the first months or years. However, as wars drag on, public willingness to continue the fight diminishes. Over time, the desire for peace often grows stronger.
In Ukraine, some now argue that conceding territory might stop the war. However, this perspective is flawed. The war cannot end unilaterally; its conclusion depends entirely on Russia’s decision to cease aggression. If Ukraine were to give up regions, Putin would likely view this as a victory and a validation of further aggression, emboldening him to push further. His goal is control over all of Ukraine, making any territorial concessions a strategic mistake.
The international community must uphold international law and support Ukraine reclaiming its 1991 borders. Ukraine cannot achieve this alone, as Russia’s resources far exceed its own. That’s why the United Nations and global allies must develop a comprehensive strategy to help Ukraine regain its territories—whether through military, political, or diplomatic means. Failing to do so would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other powerful nations to act with impunity.
Many Ukrainians remain committed to fighting for their land and sovereignty. However, as the war continues, the toll on people increases, and many seek ways to bring the conflict to an end. Yet, the reality is that Ukraine cannot stop the war on its own. The decision lies solely with Putin and Russia.
Conceding even 20% of Ukraine’s territory will not bring peace. Instead, it would embolden Putin, proving that aggression leads to results without consequence. There is no reason to believe he would stop at that point. On the contrary, it would incentivize him to push further, threatening Ukraine and the broader international order.
This is why the international community must assist Ukraine in reclaiming its territory. Whether through diplomacy, military aid, or political pressure, a solution that does not involve sacrificing Ukraine’s sovereignty must be found. While it’s understandable that some Ukrainians desire an end to the war at any cost, conceding land will not achieve peace. It will only prolong the conflict and strengthen Russia’s resolve.
Jacobsen: For Ukrainians in the diaspora who have recently arrived—those not from second, third, or fourth generations fully integrated into Canadian society but deeply rooted in Ukrainian heritage—what do they most need as they adapt to life here?
Tymuliak: Canada has provided Ukrainians with the most important thing—a safe environment. Approximately 300,000 Ukrainians have come here under a special program from the Canadian government, and we are all very grateful to Canada and its people.
Canada offers various programs to support refugees from different countries, often providing significant resources like housing and basic needs. However, for Ukrainians arriving under the CUAET program, support is limited to a one-time payment of $3,000. After that, they are told, “This is for you; make the most of it.”
Some Canadians misunderstand that the government spends heavily on Ukrainians. Most Ukrainians do not rely on government assistance. They arrive with work permits and quickly find employment. Ukrainian Canadian organizations also play a significant role in helping newcomers with information on how to find jobs, housing, and other resources.
Ukrainians coming to Canada often bring some savings and rarely require shelter. They seek safety and the opportunity to work and earn an income. While their work permits are valid for three years, there is no clear pathway to permanent residency. Recently, extensions were allowed until March, but there’s uncertainty about what will happen if the war in Ukraine continues. This lack of clarity creates anxiety about the future, as Ukrainians cannot make long-term financial or life plans.
For instance, many hesitate to take car loans or buy houses because they don’t know if they’ll have to leave Canada when their permits expire. This uncertainty is the biggest challenge Ukrainians face now. They need clear guidance from the government about their long-term prospects.
Eight months ago, I asked Pierre Poilievre about this, and he admitted it would be difficult to send Ukrainians back if the war continued. But the question remains: what will happen when the permits expire? Until this is addressed, Ukrainians in Canada will continue to face significant challenges in planning their futures.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Mykhailo.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Emeritus Professor Robert Jensen. We’re catching up a bit (after the end of Conatus News). I conducted many interviews, particularly through that outlet. I wanted to see what people have been doing. Since then, you’ve been unique in many ways, not only for taking on a position that could be described as a Tillichian existentialist Christian atheist but also as a radical thinker. On one hand, you’ve received much criticism within a traditional Christian theological framework. You’ve offered reasoned positions within the current discourse around trans ideology, radical feminism, and left-wing progressive politics, but that has also led to criticism. I commend you for your knack for adopting unique, well-considered positions. However, these positions have consequences. I know you’ve lost friends and access to certain spaces. So, what’s going on there? Jensen: Well, thank you. The easiest way to answer your question is to share a bit of my biography. I spent most of my twenties working as a journalist for newspapers across the country and had yet to develop a solid political ideology. Journalists are usually encouraged not to engage in that kind of analysis. When I returned to graduate school at the age of 30 in 1988, I was, in a sense, a blank slate. The first significant political movement I encountered was the feminist critique of pornography. At the same time, I was becoming more generally radicalized, with critiques of capitalism, U.S. imperialism abroad, and white supremacy. It seemed to me that the feminist critique of pornography aligned with those perspectives. This approach focused on not getting bogged down in individual-level analysis but looking at how systems and structures of power operate. That was a productive framework for me, and I’ve tried to apply it uniformly. Some of the conflicts I’ve encountered, which you referenced, stem from applying that framework consistently, as it creates tension with people on my side of the political spectrum. The first major tension arose from the radical feminist critique of pornography, which viewed it not as an individual right but as part of a system. At that time—and still today—the liberal/left largely embraced pornography, and that’s where the first conflict arose for me. I’ve been at odds with my friends since the beginning of my intellectual life, now more than 30 years ago. If you fast forward, once I got tenure—which in the U.S. university system means I had essentially lifetime employment—I loved teaching but I didn’t want to spend much time in the traditional scholarly world. So, I started writing for a more public audience, including the websites you mentioned. I also thought that, as someone with that job security, it was my job not to avoid conflict but to go toward conflict. Not just for the sake of being a gadfly or contrarian but because that keeps movements intellectually healthy, when they debate. And so, that has led to a whole bunch of scrapes—sometimes with people on the right, sometimes on the left, and sometimes with everybody. After 9/11, I wrote critically about the U.S. presence in the Middle East and the larger Global South, and that got me in trouble with conservatives. As you mentioned, I started articulating the long-standing radical feminist critique of the ideology of the trans movement, and that got me in trouble with the left. How does a Christian theology that doesn’t assert a supernatural divine presence work? In other words, can you be a Christian without believing in God? Of course, there’s a long tradition of Christian atheism and Christian agnosticism, and I spent a few years exploring that. More recently, I’ve been writing critically about the depth of the multiple cascading ecological crises. There are no solutions to many of the problems we face if by solutions we mean keeping the current modern world going. That seems to annoy everybody because everyone has their preferred solution for how we will get out of that trap. That’s a long-winded way of saying I had an extraordinary position. I had a job I loved, teaching college in an institution where they couldn’t fire me. I had the status of professor, which gives you credibility. I had been a journalist, so I knew how to write for a public audience. I didn’t plan any of this. It’s just how things unfolded as I tried to do things that were interesting to me and useful to the larger world. Jacobsen: One part of that earlier response mentioned how you had these back-and-forths with friends over these scrapes. At the same time, you’ve lost friends and access to things. That’s a new transition in terms of your commentary. So yes, what is the distinction there, and why? Jensen: Well, take the radical feminist critique of pornography, prostitution, and what I call the sexual-exploitation industries. I had a lot of left/liberal friends who didn’t like that critique. Still, it never led to a break, either personally or politically. But when I started critiquing trans ideology—and I wrote that first article in 2014, a decade ago now—the reaction was different. It was still rooted in that same radical feminist critique as the anti-porn material. Still, something had changed around the trans issue. The liberal/left had embraced it as a red line. If you weren’t supportive of all trans political demands, you were somehow just a reactionary. When I first wrote about that, I was not surprised because I knew these tensions existed, but I guess I was disappointed that many of my colleagues, comrades, and friends back-pedaled from engagement. Some people I’d worked with politically—but weren’t particularly close friends with—just stopped communicating with me. We had worked on organizing projects before, and then they just stopped responding to emails and phone calls. Okay, you cut those folks loose. More disappointing was losing friends, people I knew personally, who didn’t necessarily stop talking to me immediately but refused to engage on the issue. They didn’t want to be seen with me in public, apparently fearing that associating with me publicly would lead some to assume they endorsed a critique of trans ideology as well. Some of those relationships didn’t survive either, which is a shame. I’m not saying that political disagreements should never cause a break. For example, if someone I considered a friend became a raving pro-Trump racist misogynist in ways I hadn’t seen before, I doubt I would stay friends with them. It would not be easy to do. So, I’m not saying that political ideas don’t or shouldn’t affect personal relationships. What was striking, however, is that people didn’t debate me. They should have told me why I was wrong. They just denounced me and left. Something else occurs when people refuse to engage with a well-intentioned and logical critique. It’s not just that they disagree with you; they’re afraid of something. That’s been my experience with the critique of trans ideology. It wasn’t simply disagreement leading to conversation, which is what usually happens. Instead, it led to denouncement and separation, which is never healthy—politically, intellectually, or personally. Jacobsen: Politically, denunciation can sometimes function as currency, but the lack of conversation is my root issue. At the same time, the American First Amendment remains key for many people. As you make nuanced distinctions in conversations or articles—for instance, on the critique of pornography—you do give credit to those who critique it from an entirely different frame, like conservatives critiquing it from a moral or transcendentalist perspective. They may view it through the lens of oppression and exploitation but from a moral standpoint. It’s a transcendentalist moral frame of mind in their critique of pornography. But you come to the same conclusion: this seems wrong. The premises and arguments are different, but you acknowledge the validity of their conclusion in a way. Jensen: Yes, if I can interrupt you, that’s a good example. There are a variety of people we would consider conservative or religiously motivated who critique pornography. Some of them I have no intersection with because I would consider them reactionary—they are virulently anti-gay and anti-lesbian, for instance. It’s hard to work with people who don’t recognize the humanity of your friends and colleagues. On the other hand, the conservative anti-pornography movement has several people I consider allies, even though we fundamentally disagree on the nature of religion and conservative politics. But I’ve interacted with them, as have some of my other feminist colleagues, in productive ways. For instance, if you look at the conservative anti-porn movement, it has embraced a lot of the ideas and language of the feminist movement. They discuss the importance of moral considerations and harm to women and children in ways that reflect feminist insights. To give you an example, I spoke at one of those conferences. I gave what I thought was a fairly hard-hitting critique of patriarchy. Some men, especially the older men in the audience, were not excited about this. But I saw that some younger people, especially the younger women, were much more engaged. In that case, I was under no illusions about the political and intellectual differences, but engaging was important. I default to engagement only if there’s something to be gained. I’m not sure I would go to a KKK rally to argue against white supremacy because, in that case, the engagement probably won’t lead to much. So, everyone makes political and intellectual decisions about when and where to spend energy. Like most things, there isn’t a hard and fast rule. Context and objectives determine how you proceed. Jacobsen: And there has been a story in some distant news that I vaguely recall about an African American individual who befriended a member of the KKK. Over time, this person became an actual friend. I believe they even apologized and renounced their KKK association. Jensen: Yes, and that has happened to many. Jacobsen: So, it can happen, but is there a distinction between the 1990s style of disagreement and discourse, where people remained friends, versus the late 2010s and 2020s? Jensen: Well, certainly, there’s been an intensification. Let’s take that period—the late eighties and early nineties. I started teaching at the University of Texas in 1992, and the buzzword was “culture wars.” In fact, at the University of Texas, there had been a big dispute over a freshman textbook that some deemed too politically correct. So, “culture wars” and “political correctness” were the terms of debate, and those debates could get heated. Today, those terms—PC and culture wars—are still around, but now “cancel culture” and increasing polarization have taken over. In a way, it’s the same debate, just intensified. People’s anger and fear seem to have escalated. Fear often motivates the quickness to anger when someone disagrees with you. Most of human beings’ more negative qualities are motivated by fear. That’s true from my self-reflection. When I behave badly, it’s usually out of fear. So, that is a problem. In other words, the fundamental nature of the debate about intellectual life and its politicized nature hasn’t changed, but everything is more intense. My working hypothesis, which can’t be proved, is that part of this is that even among people who deny climate change or aren’t worried about environmental issues, there’s a general understanding that things are falling apart for the modern human experiment. We are drawing down the planet’s ecological capital at a rate that can’t be sustained much longer. There’s a fear that this high-energy, high-technology lifestyle, which the affluent world has become accustomed to—and which many in the non-affluent world aspire to—can’t continue much longer. But it’s comfortable. I don’t consider myself wealthy, and I see myself as a rather frugal person, but I own a car and have a house heated with natural gas that I rely on if it gets too cold for the wood stove. I live with a level of comfort that is extraordinary in historical terms. People often point out that middle-class individuals in the developed world today live better than the kings and princes of old. It’s hard to know how to let go of that level of comfort that the modern world provides to so many of us. People are afraid of it, whether they admit it or not, whether they even understand it or not. There’s a terror about what’s ahead. Terrified people often give in to their worst instincts. I’m not preaching from on high—that’s true of me, you, the left, my feminist colleagues, and all of us. So, how to respond to that fear more productively is one of the crucial political questions. Jacobsen: Many changes from social media have amplified some of that polarization. Jensen: Yes. Jacobsen: Also, most disagreements now are either professional or online insults. That is the nature of the discourse. Occasionally, there are physical incidents, like the knife attack on comedian Dave Chappelle while on stage. So, there can be instances like that, but generally, it’s emotional and verbal abuse, professional sabotage, and online insults. What are you noticing regarding how people’s careers are damaged or their emotional lives upset for some temporary period? Jensen: Before we move on to that, I do think we shouldn’t underestimate the physical violence that happens as a result of all this. There are occasional news stories about the most egregious political debates leading to fights. I think a lot about the role and status of women. There’s a lot of what you could call everyday violence, harassment, and abuse that—especially in an increasingly misogynistic political environment—gets ramped up. It’s often invisible because it’s part of the background of everyday life, and that concerns me. But you’re right that most of the news coverage focuses on people who are professionally censured or abused on social media. Much of this is discussed under the term “cancel culture.” Here, you see the breakdown of the analysis. The right makes a big deal out of cancel culture, claiming that anyone who makes an off-colour joke or said something racist 20 years ago is immediately cancelled. Of course, as far as I can tell, the right doesn’t care about the freedom to critique. They’re using it politically. The term we hear is “weaponizing” all of this. So, if you read right-wing media, cancel culture is about to destroy everything good about America. Unfortunately, some on the left respond by saying cancel culture isn’t real or that the few examples don’t matter. Well, that’s not accurate. I’m no longer teaching, I’m not on a college campus anymore, but I have many friends who are. I saw the beginnings of this process before I retired. Many people on college campuses are muting themselves, avoiding participation in important intellectual debates out of fear of being cancelled. The trans issue is the one I have the most experience with, but racial issues as well. So yes, cancel culture is real. It’s not destroying the American Republic like right-wing people say. Still, it’s also not trivial, as too many on the left claim. Jacobsen: When assessing complex phenomena, how is social media exacerbating this? Jensen: What should we do about the possibility of controlling social media? Should social media be subject to new restrictions and regulations from the government? How should social media companies police their sites? All of these are complex questions that don’t have easy answers. But we can’t pretend the underlying tensions don’t make those questions relevant. Jacobsen: Now, who do you think is being impacted more? We’re not talking about cancel culture destroying the American Republic or saying it doesn’t exist. Still, it’s affecting people professionally—whether through speaking engagements or teaching positions. These are things you can catalogue to a decent degree. Is it affecting people on the left, in the center, or on the right more? Jensen: Well, looking at this issue by issue is probably most useful. The cancel culture that the right makes the most noise about is when people accused of racism are cancelled. For instance, a University of Pennsylvania law professor has been censured. If you look at her comments, they are pretty egregious. You can imagine that if you were a Black student in her class, it would feel like a hostile environment. And we do have a legal concept of a hostile climate, where through words, a professor cannot create an atmosphere in which students can’t access the education they’re there for. All right, to make a simple analogy—and I don’t want to seem glib—but I’m from North Dakota. There aren’t that many people from North Dakota. Suppose I had a professor when I was a student who hated North Dakotans and always made jokes about how it’s surprising any North Dakotan ever got into college. In that case, I can imagine that wouldn’t feel good. I wouldn’t trust that professor’s ability to grade me fairly. Those kinds of concerns are real. But on the flip side, if freedom of speech and academic freedom are meaningful concepts, there has to be latitude for people—we might say—to be stupid. So, that’s a balance. You’re balancing the importance of freedom of speech against the real harm that happens when certain kinds of speech alienate others or make them afraid that they can’t be in a classroom. All of these concerns are real. And so, when the right complains about cancel culture, it’s mostly or often about racial issues. On the other hand, my experience, as we’ve been pointing out, is with the trans movement, which has come after not only me but many others, especially feminists. I must say that the problems I’ve had are rather minimal compared to some of my female feminist colleagues. Gender is relevant here because women tend to receive more direct and threatening attacks. So, I’ve had people refuse to talk to me. I have had speaking engagements cancelled once people found out I had written about this. If I were still teaching (I retired in 2018), I’m sure there would be students filing grievances against me. All that is unpleasant and annoying and generally creates a climate where people are afraid to speak. But I also know female feminist colleagues who have been physically attacked by trans activists or had their work life made so miserable that they quit rather than continue because the institution wouldn’t support them. All right. Those are serious problems, not just for the affected individuals, but because they suppress important dialogue about a complex and troubling set of public policy issues. And I know I’m going on, but let me make another point. My critique of the trans movement is not that people don’t have the right to struggle with the sex-gender system in the way they want. It’s when public policy demands have anti-feminist implications. For instance, males who now identify as female or women—depending on the terms you want to use—are allowed to compete in athletics, which gives them an inherent advantage over the women competing. That will slowly erode the integrity of girls and women’s sports. Well, that’s a public policy question. It’s not just about how an individual feels; it’s about what we as a society are going to do to set rules for things like sports participation, locker rooms, scholarships, or any number of areas where we make distinctions between male and female for legitimate reasons related to women’s safety, women’s ability to compete, and rectifying long-standing inequalities that have disadvantaged women. Jacobsen: And in public discourse, there’s been at least one organization or group of people on a website cataloging the number of awards in sports that would have gone to women but were instead awarded to a trans woman. Based on your knowledge of inherent differences, such as strength, what do people typically push back against when you present a nuanced and considered concern about some of these issues? Jensen: Well, it’s funny when you say “presentation.” I don’t think I’ve ever given a public lecture specifically about the trans issue. The reason is that nobody wants the heat. I give lectures about other things where the issue may arise, or people will shout me down. But I’ve done most of that work in writing—two chapters in books over the last 10 years and several articles available online. The most striking reaction to my writing—and I appreciate your observation that the writing is nuanced. I try to write, especially on controversial issues, in accurate ways, logically sound, and take into consideration the complexity—and I think that my writing on the trans issue does just that. The most striking response to my writing on the trans issue has been almost total silence. There’s simply no engagement with it. Let me give you an example. I sent the current book, which includes a chapter critiquing trans ideology, to an environmental activist I know. He replied, “Thank you for the book” and offered several complimentary remarks. So I wrote back and asked, “Do I have your permission to use those comments in publicity for the book?” And he wrote back, “No, please don’t do that.” He said, “I probably disagree with you on the trans issue, but I haven’t read that chapter yet, and I don’t have time to read that chapter, so let’s not.” You could sense the fear in his email. Not only did he ask not to be associated with my critique of trans ideology, but he didn’t even want to read the critique. I’m speculating here, but his thinking was: “I don’t want to read the chapter, not because I’ll disagree with you, but because I might agree with you—and then I’d have to deal with that.” I’ve had friends tell me they won’t read my work on trans issues. I don’t think it’s because they’re angry. If they read it and realized they agreed with me, they would have to choose how to present themselves publicly and respond to questions. Whatever one thinks about the trans issue, it’s not a good situation when people are so afraid of the responses that they refuse to even engage with the question. That can’t be good. And I don’t just mean it can’t be good for those of us critiquing trans ideology. It can’t be good for trans people. This is part of what I argue in the chapter of my new book. For instance, there’s almost a complete ban in the public conversation on discussing where the experience of trans identity comes from in medical terms. What is the etiology of transgender identity? Well, there’s a surprising silence on that for various political reasons. But how does it benefit people struggling with gender dysphoria if the root causes of gender dysphoria aren’t explored? I’ve never seen an example quite like the trans issue, where good-faith, well-intentioned engagement is shut down so completely under the argument that this helps people. I don’t see how it does at all. And, of course, when the nuanced, sensible critiques that we’re talking about are shut down, what voices critiquing trans ideology do you hear? Mostly from the right wing. And a lot of those critiques from the right are not subtle. They need to be more nuanced. Most of them are patriarchal in nature. They want to restore the primacy of traditional patriarchal norms. Jacobsen: To be mindful of time, as you were getting started, you had a professorship, so you had certain protections and earned privileges that others, like students, don’t have. You worked your way up and proved your academic merit. Jensen: Yes, exactly. And with that, I had certainly privileges that students and others don’t. Jacobsen: So, if you have younger individuals, in their early twenties, who agree with the critiques you’re making, and they have trans friends and want to maintain the dignity and compassion of their trans friends and colleagues while taking into account sensible critiques, they, as you’re noting, are often expressing some fear. How do they express themselves honestly when living under the real or perceived threat of consequences? Jensen: Absolutely, and that’s true not only of the trans issue. Let me tell you a quick story. Remember, I quit teaching in 2018 before the most intense expressions of these political ideas circulated on campuses. But I was teaching a class that dealt with social justice issues, and there was only one Black student in a class of about 30 mostly White students. We were discussing issues of racism and white supremacy, and the Black student commented, and I could see the White students tensing up. I saw an opportunity and said, “Let’s pause for a second.” I turned to the Black student and said, “I know you don’t want to speak for all Black people, but let me ask you about your reaction. Do White people ever say things so stupid you want to slap them upside the head?” She laughed and said, “Yes.” Everyone chuckled a bit, and then I asked, “Does the fact that White people say stupid things mean you never want to talk to another White person again?” She said, “No, of course not.” Then I turned to the White students and asked, “Are you ever afraid of saying something so stupid that someone might want to slap you upside the head?” You could see this sigh of relief, and they said, “Yes, we’re afraid of saying the wrong thing.” I replied, “But are you willing to speak if that’s part of an honest engagement?” They said yes. So here we were, on the campus of one of the top universities in the country, and everyone was afraid. I asked, “How is that fear going to help us critique and understand white supremacy?” The White kids started talking, and some other students of colour started talking. It was the most productive student conversation I’ve ever seen in a class in my teaching experience. It happened because I was willing to take the chance, knowing that I had privilege and power—and the students didn’t. Well, I don’t tell that story to be self-aggrandizing. There were lots of opportunities I could have done better in doing that. But at that moment, I was so frustrated that I didn’t see any other option. Multiply that by a hundred or a thousand, and you can understand that the atmosphere on college campuses for students is incredibly tense. Students feel that stress all the time. The only way to bust through it is for faculty to be the ones to take chances. Here, I’m going to be prejudiced, okay? Damn me if you must, but in my experience, university professors are among the most cowardly class of professionals I’ve ever met. And it’s ironic because, especially for professors with tenure and job protection, they’re surprisingly unwilling to engage like this. That reminds us that group loyalty is a powerful motivator. Suppose you’re a left/liberal professor, and it’s assumed that you don’t say certain things among left/liberal professors. In that case, it doesn’t matter how much freedom of speech or academic freedom you have—you won’t say those things. Your need to be part of the group will outweigh what I would call the professional obligation to push forward and challenge people. People might ask, “Well, you were a professor. Are you saying you were cowardly?” And here’s where individual differences matter. The best training I’ve had to be a somewhat iconoclastic professor was being a completely weird, nerdy, freaky kid who never fit in and never felt my identity was tied to group membership. That’s just an accident of history—that’s the kid I was. So, I grew up knowing that being part of the group would not save me. And that served me well. I’ve never been so glad I was a freaky kid until I became a professor. I’m not saying that I have never felt a part of groups or that I have never stayed quiet to remain in a group. But the older I get, the less I care about that. Jacobsen: Well, this has been an exciting catch-up, I’ll tell you that. There is no pattern yet. Jensen: There almost certainly won’t be—or at least not one that’s observable. Jacobsen: Again, thank you so much for your time. It was lovely catching up. Jensen: Thanks, Scott. ——————
Robert Jensen, an Emeritus Professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics from Olive Branch Press. His previous book, co-written with Wes Jackson, was An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity. To subscribe to his mailing list, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
‘Fatty White’ joined high IQ communities in 2017, excelling in logic puzzles and IQ tests, achieving record-breaking scores. Disillusioned with the vanity and elitism of these communities, he began selling IQ test answers in 2018, earning $1,500–$3,000 monthly and expanding his business. His expertise in solving complex problems made him a prominent figure, despite criticisms. After ceasing answer sales in 2021, he proved his intelligence through independent achievements, including publishing scientific papers and excelling in challenging IQ tests. Now, he focuses on research, reflecting on his journey as a critique of aspects of high IQ societies.
Keywords: Chinese High IQ Association, Chinese high IQ societies, Fatty White, GFIS timed test, high IQ communities, selling IQ test answers, Shenghan High IQ Association, Super Brain competition.
Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for agreeing to openly and frankly talk about this issue from a firsthand experience. This is a problematic area in high-I.Q. Communities with algorithms like large language models, for instance. Who is ‘Fatty White’? When did you enter the I.Q. communities and begin and end the selling of I.Q. test answers? What were the lessons and outcomes?
‘Fatty White’: I’m glad you asked me about this question, and I’m happy to share this story about what happened to “Fatty White”—which is actually my story.
First, I want to specify that I joined the High IQ Society in late 2017, started selling IQ test answers in 2018, and ended this practice in late 2021. Here’s my story – I won’t exaggerate anything, and I won’t withhold any details. I welcome anyone to cross-examine me on the specifics.
Around 2017, I was interested in logic puzzles and participated in many Chinese reasoning competitions, winning multiple first-place awards. At that time, due to the popularity of the TV show “The Super Brain,” Chinese high IQ societies were very active, and I received invitations from several high IQ association members. Initially, I didn’t use my real name, but I joined GFIS (China’s largest high IQ organization) under a pseudonym. The admission rate for the audition of “The Super Brain” is 100 out of 100000, and I have been selected twice under the name of “Fatty White.” The reason why I was only selected twice is because I helped others get on the list.
At first, I didn’t know much about IQ tests; I joined GFIS through their timed test. GFIS’s timed tests were far superior to the Shenghan Association’s, with many different questions – something I only learned later. In my first timed test, I surprisingly scored 170+, breaking GFIS’s timed test record. While I always knew I was smart, I hadn’t expected to be that smart. My first high-range IQ test was probably Junlong Li’s Silent Number (though I’m a bit fuzzy on the details), but my first HRT score was also around 170. Later, I attempted Ivan Ivec’s Numerus Classic and achieved a perfect score (185, SD15).
I initially joined the High IQ Society because I found the organization interesting, but as I learned more about this community, I began to despise it – not just specific individuals but the vast majority of its members. It was full of people with limited education and, in my opinion, actual IQs not exceeding 130, who used their seniority to constantly boast and profit from membership fees and test fees (primarily the Shenghan High IQ Association). Most members were not doing well in real life and sought validation through IQ scores. This phenomenon wasn’t limited to Chinese associations but was common in international ones, too. I often openly expressed my contempt for some international members on Facebook.
Subsequently, I decided to profit from most people’s vanity by selling IQ test answers. My business was extensive – beyond HRT answers, I could take intelligence-related tests for others, including timed tests or qualifying rounds for shows like “The Super Brain.” This brought me monthly earnings of $1,500-3,000. I used this money to take my parents on trips to Japan and other countries myself and become a regular at Michelin-starred restaurants. As my business grew, I recruited several people with genuine IQs around 150 to help me with HRTs – not because I lacked ability, but because I lacked time. I needed more people to solve simpler problems, especially since most clients only requested scores in the 130-160 range.
This process wasn’t as simple as I’ve described. I wasn’t just selling IQ test answers but also a force opposing Chinese high IQ associations. Why oppose them? Simply because I disliked them. To fight them, I had to consistently and efficiently crack their problems to prove my capabilities. For instance, with Junlong Li’s high IQ association “Silent House,” which required solving a weekly thinking problem before joining, I would often be the first to solve these weekly problems and then sell the answers. I even solved some problems that had never been correctly answered before. Emotionally, I liked Silent House but disliked Junlong Li personally, so I opposed him at every turn. However, I must admit that his Silent Numbers and SS40 HRTs were very high quality. I later learned these tests were collaboratively developed, but I still appreciate them greatly.
The story became more routine after that. After establishing my foundation, my business grew and monopolized China’s answer-selling market. I became very well-known (always using Fatty White as my codename) because my answers were extremely accurate, and I was one of the few people scoring above 190. I’ve always believed Chinese HRTs are superior to international ones. Even today, only two people in China have IQ scores above 190: Mahir Wu and I. We are generally recognized as China’s two highest IQ individuals. Later, I settled with the Chinese High IQ Association committee – after 2021, I would stop selling any IQ test answers, and I could use my real name, Tianxi Yu, in High IQ Association activities.
Some might question: How can you prove your IQ is genuine when you’ve admitted to organizing answer sales? Honestly, I don’t care anymore what others think my IQ is. Even in real life, I don’t mention my IQ because I find it meaningless. However, I can explain: First, the Chinese High IQ Association committee investigated me afterward and found that I achieved my extremely high scores independently, so I can now use my real name on rankings and submit tests. Second, on Mahir Wu’s Death Numbers – possibly the world’s most difficult numerical HRT today – I scored 28/30, ranking first, with Zoran Bijac second at 16.5/30. Such results couldn’t be achieved through group effort, and I had already disbanded my team when I submitted this.
Afterward, I invested my earnings in cryptocurrency, which greatly increased my wealth. This March, my daily income reached $160,000. However, this wasn’t sustainable, and I lost several hundred thousand dollars in subsequent market fluctuations. I’ve now completely exited the cryptocurrency market, disgusted by monetary manipulation – money makes me sick. Today, I’ve graduated from university and formally entered society, working in research-related fields and living a fulfilling and satisfying life. By the way, I published SCI and EI core papers during my undergraduate years, quickly figuring out the publication process even for high-level papers. I’ve always believed that a truly intelligent person can achieve success in any field rather than constantly bragging about their IQ test scores.
This is my story’s general outline- Fatty White’s story.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with ‘Fatty White’ on Selling I.Q. Test Answers [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fatty-white.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Original authorship December, 2021.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
The Flynn Effect (FE), characterized by consistent increases in IQ test scores over time, has been observed globally but varies significantly across nations and demographics. Initial studies highlighted these gains, with later research attributing them to environmental, behavioral, and methodological factors rather than changes in general intelligence (g). Notably, FE gains are higher in fluid intelligence measures than crystallized ones, vary by age and test type, and sometimes reverse, as seen in several developed nations. These reversals point to the saturation and decline of positive factors, coupled with the influence of negative causes such as dysgenic fertility. Analyses suggest the FE operates on non-g factors, with minimal evidence linking it to actual intelligence improvements. Methodological artifacts, including test-taking behaviors and scoring techniques, contribute significantly to the observed gains. Future research, leveraging genetic markers and polygenic scores, may further elucidate the complex interplay of factors underlying the FE’s variability and reversals.
Keywords: Dysgenic fertility, environmental factors, fluid intelligence, Flynn Effect, general intelligence, IQ score gains, test artifacts.
On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g
Background
The thing we now call the Flynn Effect was initially discovered by researchers in the 1940s as an increase in IQ test scores. Papers reporting such gains were published by Smith (1942), Tuddenham (1948), Lynn (1982), and Flynn (1984). This effect did not have a name until the publication of The Bell Curve in 1994. Herrnstein and Murray named it the Flynn Effect (see page 307). Subsequently, researchers began to look at the effect and have since published a huge number of papers that attempt to make sense of what is happening. They found that gains were large enough to be of concern. If real, they suggest a large change in intelligence; but if not real, they at least reveal an instability in IQ tests.
Examples of IQ test score increases per decade: U.S. 3.0 points; Japan 7.7 points; and Argentina 6.9 points. Imagine a 50 year span… these gains would amount to over two over standard deviations (a very large difference). James Flynn initially noted that these gains are so large that it would mean that the average IQ in the United States in 1918 would have been 75, if scored against the norms at the time of his writing. Various similar observations (including Dutch data) showed that the gains are unlikely to be real, yet when the public and pop science magazines heard about the effect, they assured us that mankind was becoming brilliant. Clearly that was not happening, but even some researchers began to suggest that people were getting smarter.
One early question was whether the FE was real? In terms of something that can be shown to be related to another intelligence related measure, is the effect more than random differences in data? Rushton used principal components analysis to look at gains on the WISC-R and WISC-III and found a cluster, meaning that the gains were a reliable phenomenon. The cluster was independent of the cluster formed by breeding group differences, inbreeding depression and g loadings, which tells us that the gains are not a Jensen Effect (meaning that they are not g loaded). Other researchers showed a similar result by using the Method of Correlated Vectors. [01]
Today it is common for researchers to accept that the FE is a score gain of about 3 points per decade. But when we look at the changes in scores on a nation by nation basis, we find gains that are much higher and much lower. This tells us that whatever is causing the changes in one place is acting differently or is due
to a totally different cause from that in a place where the changes are quite different in magnitude. We have negative FEs (reversal) in at least seven nations–again pointing to different causes or different stages of individual causes.
The message that will emerge from this discussion is that the FE is not a single thing, but is the sum of many parts that vary over time and place. If we compute a FE in one nation it will be different in both magnitude and characteristics from a similar computation in a different nation at the same time. But if we compute it in one nation at one time and then compute it again in the same nation but at a different time, the result can be different in magnitude, sign, and component causes.
Characteristics
To get an idea of how inconsistent the FE has been let’s examine how it has played out in different studies:
Gains mostly in the low IQ range; gains mostly in the high IQ range; gains uniform for the full IQ distribution.
The effect is seen in preschool children; some papers argue that the FE is caused by education. • Different age groups, within the same study, can show different FEs.
Gains using the same test are higher for measures of fluid intelligence and lower for crystallized intelligence.
Different tests give different FE changes. Many references point to the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) test as showing the largest gains.
When FE gains have been tested for invariance, the result is consistently that invariance is not supported between age cohorts. This importantly means that IQ tests operate differently for different age groups.
Some component measures, such as spatial ability show gains, while others, such as vocabulary show losses.
Gains seem to be in ability differentiation, not in g. [02]
Some studies (Northern and Central Europe) show a significant sex difference, with larger FE for women than men.
The FE is regional, showing larger gains in regions experiencing rapid development. • Within individual nations, some show rapid FE gains, then slow gains, then no gains, then a reversal (IQ scores declining).
Reversal
It is important to consider the cases in which large FEs declined and then reversed over a period of years. The reversals are difficult to explain by most of the causes that are otherwise plausible. FE gains have turned into losses in Norway, Denmark, Britain, Netherlands, Finland, France, Estonia. None of these nations show parallel effects that might relate to declining nutrition, physical traits (height), education, less complex environmental stimulation, etc. Woodley et al. reported a literature search that identified reported negative FEs in 13 nations. This study reported more rapid FE declines when less g loaded tests were used and identified immigration from low IQ nations as contributing to the net IQ decline.
How can the negative FE be explained? The answer lies in the FE consisting of numerous causes, with varying effect sizes and different saturation points. These effects reach their maximum effect and then cease to cause changes (up or down). When the causes that increase test scores decline to insignificant
levels we are left with negative causes that are still active. One known negative cause is dysgenic fertility (bright people having fewer children than dull people). This effect seems to be continuing at a slow, but steady rate in developed nations. The dysgenic effect will be discussed after the positive causes are considered (below).
Some researchers have found that the negative FE is even larger than the positive FE. Pietschnig & Gittler found a 4.8 point per decade decline in German-speaking nations. They attribute the reversal to saturation of positive FE factors. Dutton & Lynn found a 3.8 point decline in France over ten years. Platt, et al. reported a large U.S. study that showed a positive FE for IQs above 130 and a negative FE for IQs below 70 (all from the same data). In a separate study, Woodley reported a loss of 4.5 points per decade in the Netherlands. These negative FEs are larger than the often claimed average FE gain of 3.0 points per
decade.
What causes the FE?
Various papers have investigated what they describe as THE causes of the FE. If they found some supporting evidence, they have typically presented it without noting that there are obviously many other likely contributors. Some of the things that have been considered as candidate causes:
Education
Decreased family size
Increased exposure to testing
Heterosis
Exposure to artificial light
More complex visual environment
Nutrition and improved health care
Child rearing practices
Abstract reasoning
Speed of test completion
Slower life history speed
Testing artifacts
Among other potential causes, migration, fertility, and mortality have been investigated and found to not show correlations with the FE.
Education
More years of education is supported as a cause in some studies; some researchers argue that it has the largest effect. There are, however, effects that are opposed to this cause. Numerous reports show declines in Gc (crystalized intelligence) and increases in Gf (fluid intelligence). Education should show gains during school years, but some studies have found larger gains among adults. Other studies have found that both Gc and full-scale gains were negligible, while Gf shows gains. This is opposite of what would be expected from education driven gains. As previously noted, the FE has been shown for preschool children. They have shown IQ gains of 3.9 points per decade (higher than the often stated average FE gain of 3 points per decade. This range of different findings is typical of attempts to verify specific causes.
Decrease in family size
Smaller family sizes would cause a gain in mean scores because it would disproportionately remove more people with slightly lower IQs and retain those with higher IQs due to the birth order effect. The (related) well established negative correlation between IQ and fertility rate is the focus of study for the decline in g that has been studied extensively. In Iceland polygenic scores [03] were used to predict educational
achievement and showed a negative correlation with Icelandic and US data. This cause is convincingly established and points to a decline that is a Jensen Effect. [04]
Increased exposure to testing
Arthur Jensen pointed (The g Factor) to increased test-wiseness related to more frequent testing in schools as a non-g factor in increased test scores. One of the most convincing demonstrations of this came from the 72 year range of tests in Estonia. [Olev Must, Jan te Nijenhuis, Aasa Must, & A. van Vianen, (2009). Comparability of IQ scores over time. Intelligence, 37, 25–33.] When I discussed this with Olev Must, he
told me that one of the good outcomes of the communist period was that they never threw any documents away. Hence, they had National Intelligence Test results for this long period. Analysis of the results showed a clear trend of increased guessing (more test items tried and more errors, but also with the expected gains). This effect was predicted by Chris Brand in 1996. He wrote: “The correct strategy for testees is: When in doubt, guess.” Today this testing artifact is known as the Brand Effect. Michael Woodley insightfully noted that gains that had been described as Jensen Effects, based on subtest scores showing more gains on more g loaded test items, could be explained as Brand Effects. The more g loaded subtests are also more difficult and are much more likely to involve increased guessing.
Heterosis
Mingroni argued that broadened ranges of breeding (to villages that were far enough away to be outside of the breeding group in consideration) would account for a larger gene pool that could lead to increased intelligence. Since this would be a genetic effect, it should show up (if real) as a gain in g. His explanation was offered with the observation that environmental effects on intelligence are small, [shown by MZ twins reared apart and adoption studies] so there must be something else happening. Of course, there is–testing artifacts, such as the Brand Effect. The heterosis explanation is consistent with secular trends in height, growth rate, myopia, asthma, autism, ADHD, and head circumference. But the effect has not been observed and it is inconsistent with FE gains in Europe before increased immigration. The developmental gains are inconsistent with IQ gains in various nations.
Exposure to artificial light
The basis of this suggestion (from Jensen) is that the pineal gland can be stimulated in animals (poultry farms do this), causing faster maturity and increased metabolism. In humans, there is little doubt that we have experienced increased amounts of artificial light from area lighting, computer screens, and television. There is, however, no data reported on this potential effect, so it cannot be accepted until a proper study shows that it is actually linked to the FE.
More complex visual environment
There is no doubt but that our environments have become more complex with the development of advanced communications, video streaming, computers, smart phones, and ever increasing automobile features. Some researchers have suggested that these environmental factors have led to changes that contribute to the FE. Armstrong and Woodley reported a significant correlation between rule-dependence and FE gains that mimic the gains seen in retesting (gains on specificity). One obvious appearance of this is in progressive matrices tests, which have been shown to be subject to learning, not only from repeat testing, but also from progressing through the test. Tests such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) show a maximum g loading only when first encountered. This general effect, of learning rule based processes, exists throughout our increasingly complex environment.
Nutrition and improved pre-natal health care
It is a virtual certainty that our food and health care (specifically pre-natal) have had direct impact on birth weights, height, and developmental quotients (DQs). Richard Lynn has published several papers showing the rather rapid advances in these physical measures and has implied that they translate into IQ gains. His argument makes sense, particularly in connection with head size, which is positively correlated with skull
size and brain size. There are many studies showing the positive correlation between brain volume and IQ. When high quality IQ tests are used, this correlation is about r = +0.40. In 2018 researchers determined that the cause of this correlation is lower neurite density, that promotes more efficient neurite orientation, and more complete arborizaion in larger brains. This means that larger brains are more efficient.
The nutrition argument, as with most FE outcomes, has problems. Nutrition, as it relates to vitamins, supplements, etc. have not been shown to improve intelligence in developed nations. [In undeveloped nations insufficient intakes of iron, iodine, and folate have been found to depress intelligence.] The nations presently experiencing a negative FE have not shown nutritional decline. Gains in IQ due to these factors would make sense if they were linked to IQ gains in the lower half of the intelligence spectrum, but the gains in such things as height have been concentrated in the upper half. Flynn argued that height gains were not happening at times when IQ gains were observed.
The primary supporter of FE gains in this category was Richard Lynn. His papers discuss DQs and the other physiological factors that have been linked to improved nutrition. The strong implication from these papers is that the FE gains he has suggested are gains in g because g is known to be most strongly related to the biological aspects of intelligence. The curious thing is that Lynn has also argued that psychometric g is decreasing due to the dysgenic consequences of high fertility among dull people and low fertility among bright people. [Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in modern populations] His arguments are vectors pointing in opposite directions.
Child rearing practices
The inherent problem with explaining FE gains or losses as the result of child rearing practices is that the FE has been found in essentially every nation that has been examined, despite large differences in child rearing practices. Additionally, adoption studies have shown that adopted children reach adulthood with a zero correlation between their IQs and those of their adoptive parents and adoptive siblings. In short, the shared environment does not impact adult intelligence. [There is a temporary shared environmental variance that vanishes around age 12.]
Abstract reasoning
As previously noted, FE gains have been larger in tests of abstract reasoning than on tests of Gc. The RPM has consistently showed a substantial positive FE. When tests are evaluated, the item level difficulty increases as a function of the abstractness of the item. As discussed above, increased difficulty can lead to increased guessing that results in a FE gain. Another result is that when tests are compared over time, the more abstract words show lower miss rates over the time range being evaluated. This result supports Flynn’s interpretation that the FE is driven (at least in part) by increased abstract thinking ability.
Speed of test completion
The Brand Effect is the result of increased guessing, but there is another related effect due to the behavioral trend of students taking the tests faster. Younger cohorts work faster. Increased test taking speed results in more test items attempted, more missed and more with correct responses. The change in speed of test taking results in a significant lack of invariance. Shiu et al. showed a 38% difference in item functioning between age groups. Must and Must showed that when invariant test items were examined, there was little or no FE. When speeded items were examined there was a large, positive FE. [Speediness is determined at the subtest level by the fraction of test items that were not attempted.]
Slower life history speed
Michael Woodley and various co-authors have argued that the FE is related to slowing life history speed. This concept is related to environmental gains in safety, food supply, and other survival needs. As living conditions improve, people are inclined to shift their priorities towards such things as education, nutrition, age when first child is born, smaller families, wellbeing, and lifestyles. This model is functionally similar
to a movement from r-strategy (more offspring and less protection of young) to K-strategy (fewer offspring and significant parental protection). When populations are maturing in favorable survival
conditions, they move from fast to slow life history speed. This shift is accompanied by lower fertility rates, more education, and improved nutrition; all of these could contribute to changes seen in the FE.
Woodley, noted that life history speed is not a genetic effect, but rather a behavioral change. [Michael Woodley (2012). A life history model of the Lynn–Flynn effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(2), 152–156.] In the context of the FE, this is consistent with various demonstrations that the FE is not a Jensen Effect. [04]
In various places and time spans, it is reasonable to claim that there are changes related to slower life history speed. This is consistent with FE gains and societal behavior. But with at least seven European nations (all highly developed) showing a FE reversal, the life history speed model would presumably have to show a reversal (faster LHS). This reversal has not been evident.
Testing artifacts
We have already looked at the Brand Effect (increased guessing) and test taking speediness as causes of the FE. Some researchers were mislead to believe that they were seeing increases in g, when they were actually seeing different rates of guessing as a function of g loading and item difficulty. Another artifact, directly related to IQ tests is the use of classical test theory (CTT) instead of item response theory (IRT). Most IQ tests are scored using CTT. This method applies equal weight to each test item and simply combines subtest scores to produce an IQ score. One obvious problem with this approach is that it gives equal weight to easy and difficult test items. IRT is based on item level difficulty, as determined by the item characteristic curve. IQ can be determined by establishing the level of item difficulty beyond which guessing is indicated. IRT is understood to be the superior method.
Beaujean and Osterlind scored the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data set using both CTT and IRT. Results are shown below:
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised
CTT FE of 0.44 points per year
IRT FE of 0.06 points per year
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Math
CTT FE of 0.27 points per year
IRT FE of 0.13 points per year
These results do not need explanation. They are substantial and are entirely the result of scoring the same test results using CTT and the superior IRT.
Another artifact is present in numerous studies; it is that the FE is measured at two different times, using different tests or different revisions of the same test. These differences introduce measurement errors due to different test items being used and practice effects when the same items are used. There is no literature that has sorted out the impact of this category of error, but the qualitative aspects of these are obvious and most likely relate to the inconsistent and confusing outcomes that are common in FE literature.
Are FE changes g loaded?
Perhaps the most important factor to be established about the FE is its g loading. If it is a change in g (a Jensen Effect), then we would have real increases in intelligence. If it is not g loaded, then the changes are in something else; this could be changes in non-g factors that relate to intelligence or simply artifacts that should be treated as noise.
Most researchers have tried to determine if the effect they were examining is a Jensen Effect or not. Almost all have found that it is not g loaded and it is likely that those who claimed a change in g were mistaking a Brand Effect for intelligence gains. As mentioned in the background section, one of the most obvious ways to appreciate that the FE is hollow is to consider the magnitude of changes that have been reported in various nations. Over relatively short spans of time the FE gains have been outrageously large, suggesting that past generations were at the level of retardation as compared to present populations. Nothing we have seen in real world behavior is consistent with such a massive change in intelligence.
The only confirmed FE changes have been those associated with environmental effects. We already know that nothing in the environment has been found that actually increases intelligence; ergo, FE gains would not show g variation if they are caused by the environment. At this point in time we can safely say that the primary factors contributing to the FE are environmental (including behavioral).
An excellent study of the FE and a biological marker was done by Nettelbeck and Wilson in Australia. Two studies were done at different times (1981 and 2001). The studies were done in the same school and same grade levels using the same test (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test). They also measured inspection time (IT) on both occasions, using the same Gerbrands tachistoscope. It is an excellent biological intelligence marker. The results showed the predicted FE gains (5 points) over the 20 year period, but the IT results were unchanged. This is exactly what would be expected if the gains were not a Jensen Effect. I asked Nettlebeck if there were any observable differences in SES or nutrition between the two groups. He said that the area served by the school was stable and that there were no observable differences in such things as nutrition or standard of living.
Principal components analysis of FE gains (discussed above) showed that there was no overlap between FE gains and purely genetic factors (racial differences and inbreeding depression). Must et al. used the method of correlated vectors [01] to test for g loading and found no g loading.
Jensen presented a particularly convincing argument that shows another way to demonstrate a lack of g loading in FE changes. He stated that the definitive test of whether FE gains are hollow or not is to apply the predictive bias test. This means that two points in time would be compared on the basis of an external criterion (real world measurement, such as school grades). If the gains are hollow, the later time point would show underprediction, relative to the earlier time. This assumes that the later test has not been renormed. In actual practice tests are periodically renormed so that the mean remains at 100. The result of this recentering is that the tests maintain their predictive validity, indicating that the FE gains are indeed hollow.
Finally, there has been a dysgenic effect on intelligence in developed nations for the past 100 to 150 years, caused by the negative correlation between intelligence and fertility rate. This effect is shown by measures that load on g (reaction time, vocabulary, color sensitivity, and backward digit span). These measures have shown movement in the direction that indicates lower intelligence. [See At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, by E. A. Dutton & M. A.
Woodley of Menie. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.] The rate of decline in g is slow, but its existence means that g is not increasing, since this is a single parameter that cannot show a net gain and loss over the same period of time. [Also see Lynn, R. (2011). Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in modern populations (revised ed.). London: Ulster Institute for Social Research and Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.] Besides these books there is a large number of scholarly papers also showing a decline in g.
Understanding non-g effects
IQ tests measure variances in g, non-g residuals of broad abilities, and uniqueness (specificity + random error). [Specificity = s, random error = e] The sum of these variances must equal 100%. The FE appears to operate on residuals and uniqueness. Causes such as the Brand Effect, faster test taking, and method of scoring do not change any aspect of cognitive ability, so they are confined to the uniqueness variance. That leaves a broad number of candidate causes to necessarily appear as increases in non-g parts of broad abilities.
If an IQ test is given to a large group, then factor analyzed (with hierarchical factor analysis), the result is that factors are shown for numerous narrow abilities; these are usually called Stratum I. When these are factored, they produce a few broad ability factors at Stratum II. The common variance in the Stratum II factors defines g at Stratum III. [Some tests can produce up to 4 stratums and others may produce g at Stratum II.] If g is factored out of Stratum II, the residuals are orthogonal to g. If these are tested for external validity, essentially none is found. The ability of IQ tests to predict important life outcomes is almost entirely the result of the test g variance.
In the case of FE gains and losses, the test scores are reflecting changes in the variance due to these non-g factors. The presence of the group factors (Stratum II) was known by Spearman and researchers since his discovery of g. Group factors are real abilities, even after g is removed. In that sense, they can and do show up in tests, causing drift up or down as environmental factors are expressed as non-g variance. These factors have been carefully studied with respect to score changes due to education. Learned material may show up as specificity variance, if the test calls upon such material. Another related cause of s-loading is test familiarity, seen when the same test is re-administered. Gains from familiarity with the test are not gains in intelligence, but can show up as s-loading.
Future research and polygenic scores
In The g Factor, Jensen discussed an idea he called an anchor point. This would be a true biological marker of intelligence (g). [The discussion (above) of IT by Nettelbeck and Wilson can be regarded as a comparison of FE gains against an anchor point.] If psychometric scores increased, they could be measured against the anchor to show that they are or are not increases in g. The anchor would not move if the psychometric scores were hollow. If the anchor increased, there would be a gain in real intelligence. The measurement Jensen suggested was RT (reaction time, a chronometric measure). At this point, it is fairly obvious that the FE gains are hollow, but Jensen’s idea can now be done genetically by recording polygenic scores for groups being studied. If the polygenic scores increase, we have a direct measure of a change in real intelligence. Monitoring polygenic scores would also serve to confirm or disconfirm the decline in g that has been discussed by Dutton / Woodley and Lynn. Given the huge increase in genome data banks, it is inevitable that such data will be used in the future to give excellent indications of real population changes in intelligence.
Conclusions
FE gains and losses are due to an unknown number of small causes that may appear in different combinations at different times or different places.
Gains and losses are not Jensen Effects and as such do not represent changes in real intelligence. • Reversal happens when negative causes (lowering intelligence) are larger than those causing gains. This happens when the causal effects reach saturation.
Causes of the test score instability are associated with the environment and with test artifacts.
Notes
[01] The method of correlated vectors is used to determine wether an external variable is related to g. It is a somewhat complex method that is fully explained in Appendix B of Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. The basic process is to create a column vector from the g loadings of subtests and then correlate that with a vector that consists of measurements of a factor that is external to the test. If there is a positive correlation, then the external variable is g loaded. There have been papers that challenge the merits of this method as valid for all situations. It is, however, widely used to demonstrate that various measures are related to g.
[02] Broad abilities (typically Stratum II factors in a Cattell-Horn-Carroll test) can be divided into g and non-g parts. In determining the g loading of a test, g is the common element in the Stratum II factors. If g is factored out of the Stratum II factors, the non-g parts can be identified as residuals of each broad ability.
These residuals are real abilities, but typically show little, if any, predictive validity when tested independently from g. At high levels of intelligence, Charles Spearman (who invented factor analysis and discovered g) contended that the differentiation between cognitive abilities shifts towards increased importance of the non-g (residuals). This is known as Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns and remains in dispute because it is vexingly difficult to prove. The use of “ability differentiation” in the document is a reference to the non-g broad abilities.
[03] Polygenic scores – The success of genome wide association studies resulted in the initial identification of 1,271 single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with intelligence. These variants have been used to create polygenic scores, which can be used to measure IQ from the number of these that are present in the DNA of a given person. See: Using DNA to predict intelligence; Sophie von Stumm, Robert Plomin; Intelligence 86 (2021) 101530. Also see: Robert Plomin – Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are, Penguin Books Ltd., 2018, ISBN 9780241282076.
[04] Jensen Effect – An effect that is related to g is considered to be a Jensen Effect. Because g can be used as the very definition of intelligence, a Jensen Effect means that the thing being observed is related to real biological intelligence, and not to an artifact or factor that is not g loaded.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Williams B. On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Williams, B. (2024, November 22). ‘On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): WILLIAMS, B. On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Williams, B. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Williams, B. “On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27.
Harvard: Williams, B. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27.
Harvard (Australian): Williams, B 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Williams, Bob. “On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Williams B. On High-Range Test Construction 27: Bob Williams, The Flynn Effect: A testing phenomenon, not psychometric g [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-27.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Updated March 13, July 25, July 28, August 7, and October 13, 2025.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Yaniv Hozez is an Interdisciplinary Artificial Intelligence & Cybersecurity Researcher with extensive expertise in machine learning, deep learning, neural network architecture, cryptography, and cryptanalysis. With nearly a decade of experience, Yaniv has contributed to innovative AI & Cybersecurity solutions and cutting-edge research. He is affiliated with high-IQ societies like OLYMPIQ and The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE). Yaniv’s published works span 35 entries, exploring AI’s intersection with psychology, linguistics, and philosophy. He has held roles at Zirra Co Ltd., Check Point Software, MyVoice AI, Ono Academic College, and the Israeli Ministry of Defense, enhancing AI and Cybersecurity capabilities in diverse applications. Beyond possessing a remarkably high IQ of 190, he has committed to memory 3,000 consecutive digits of the mathematical constant e – a feat that highlights both his exceptional memory and analytical capabilities. He defeated Chess.com’s top-tier engine (~3200 Elo) in multiple classical games — exceeding the highest official human Elo rating in history (Magnus Carlsen, 2882). He is a Full Member of Sigma Xi (and elected to the Stanford Chapter without holding prior academic degrees). He took the initiative to establish the Israeli chapter of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society. The project is currently under review by the Office of the Chief Scientist in Israel (now part of the Israeli Innovation Authority). His updated CV can be viewed here. Hozez reflects on family legacy, inspired by his uncle’s basketball career, and a rich cultural background rooted in Israel, where his grandfather, Mordechai Hozez, was a rabbi and kabbalist. Professionally, he is focused on applying pure logic to practical challenges. A member of elite societies like Sigma Xi and OLYMPIQ, Hozez believes genius is innate, shaped by profound intelligence. His metaphysical views explore dualities of time, logic, and transcendence, emphasizing growth through challenges. Gratitude defines his life’s meaning, with belief in an afterlife as a bridge to ultimate unity.
Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Yaniv Hozez: I grew up in Ganei Tikva, Israel. One of the prominent family stories often told was about my uncle, Pinhas Hozez, an Israeli former basketball player who represented the Israeli national basketball team.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Hozez: When I played basketball in elementary school, I dreamed of becoming a basketball player when I grew up. My uncle’s career inspired me, and I often thought about continuing his path in basketball, which gave me a strong sense of connection to our family legacy.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Hozez: My grandfather, Mordechai Hozez, was a synagogue rabbi, a mohel, and a kabbalist. He was fluent in Assyrian and Aramaic, mastering them at a native level.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Hozez: It wasn’t always easy for me, because I couldn’t express what I was feeling in a way that others could fully understand. I tended to see things in multiple layers and dimensions, and explaining that wasn’t always successful.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Hozez:I am a Full Member of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society (affiliated with the Stanford Chapter, and previously affiliated with the Harvard Chapter and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for a short period). In addition to these activities, I have also initiated plans to launch the first Sigma Xi chapter in Israel and proposed the revitalization of dormant chapters at Harvard University and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Notably, my initiative to re-establish the Harvard Chapter received the personal blessing of Professor Alan Garber, President of Harvard University. These initiatives reflect my broader commitment to expanding Sigma Xi’s reach and fostering international collaboration among researchers. I also initiated an academic outreach on behalf of The OLYMPIQ Society’s intellectual community to World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen, inviting participation in a cognitive exchange event, and received a formal and appreciative response from his team. Beyond academia, I have developed and sustained relationships with top government officials through direct meetings and continuous dialogue. Over the years, I have built and maintained warm and ongoing relationships with senior government officials, including personal meetings with ministers such as Ofir Akunis (now Consul General of Israel in New York) and his aide at the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Yariv Levin (assisted in high-level policy development on national legal and strategic initiatives — applying frameworks of pure logic alongside senior government leadership), the aide to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Amir Ohana, Yoav Ben-Tzur and his deputy, Yoav Kisch, and the deputy of Gila Gamliel. These engagements reflect my dedication to advancing scientific collaboration, innovation policy, and the application of rational frameworks to national strategic initiatives. Additionally, I am a Fellow of The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE). I am also an International Member of the American Psychological Association (APA), a Profound Member of the ELITE High IQ Society (part of The GENIUS High IQ Network), and a Full Member of the sPIqr Society (Italy), which was established with the aim to support gifted children often neglected by the system. I have conducted peer reviews for scientific journals published by Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and Wiley in association with The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, earning reviewer verification certificates. Furthermore, I have conducted peer reviews for Qeios (ISSN: 2632–3834), a platform I would like to highly recommend. Qeios is an exceptional academic journal that offers a modern, inclusive approach to peer-reviewed publishing. It fosters open dialogue and collaboration among researchers, encouraging innovative ideas and critical thinking. My experience working with Qeios has been enriching and professionally rewarding, and I wholeheartedly endorse it to fellow researchers and professionals in the field.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Hozez:In 2020, I was accepted as a Full Member of The OLYMPIQ Society — an organization admitting only individuals with an IQ above 175 (SD 15). My own tested IQ is 190 (SD 15), which qualified me for membership.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Hozez: Before the sin of Adam and Eve, wisdom and abundance were freely accessible. However, after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, these became scarce and limited in their accessibility. True wisdom, and the happiness that accompanies it, can only be discovered when one recognizes how little they truly know. Yet, after the act of eating from the Tree, Adam, Eve, and humanity as a whole became aware of things they were never meant to know. This awareness imposed limitations on themselves and all of humanity. The sin granted knowledge, but this knowledge, paradoxically, made humanity ignorant and constrained in its understanding and perception. Only by regaining the ability to acknowledge what we don’t understand — a capacity diminished after the sin — can we rediscover true wisdom. The yetzer hara (evil inclination), symbolized by the primordial serpent, continues to influence humanity by perpetuating these limitations. It not only made wisdom less accessible, but it also introduced jealousy as a pervasive force in human nature. Jealousy causes individuals to resent the wisdom or gifts they see in others, projecting their dissatisfaction outward. In this way, the yetzer hara manipulates people into feeling deprived, while simultaneously depriving them of the ‘antidote’ — the joy of contentment and the ability to value their own blessings. To illustrate, consider the moral principle of theft: If you see a poor man with very little, would you steal from him? No, because it’s wrong to steal, regardless of how little or much someone has. Similarly, if you see a rich man with abundant wealth, would you steal from him? Again, no — because theft is wrong, irrespective of the circumstances. The same principle applies to envy. If you see someone wealthy or successful, are you justified in envying them? No, because envy, like theft, is inherently wrong. It does not matter how much someone else has; the moral obligation to refrain from envy stands independent of their circumstances. Many people justify contentment by pointing to the misfortunes of others — for instance, telling someone, ‘Be happy with what you have because others have greater hardships.’ But this justification is flawed and even destructive. It ties one’s happiness to the suffering of others, perpetuating envy and bitterness rather than resolving it. Worse, it can lead individuals to cause harm to others as a way to feel better about themselves, further feeding the destructive cycle of envy. True contentment and joy do not arise from what one possesses but from the ability to be satisfied with what one has. This is a universal principle that applies to all: not everyone has the same material blessings, but everyone is entitled to the joy that comes from cultivating contentment. The yetzer hara seeks to obscure this truth, encouraging jealousy and dissatisfaction. Overcoming this influence requires recognizing that contentment is not about the quantity of what we have, but about the perspective we choose to adopt toward it. In this context, humanity’s extreme reactions to geniuses — whether mocking, vilifying, or revering them — stem from the scarcity of true wisdom since that pivotal event. Geniuses often embody a rare connection to deeper layers of understanding, which can inspire awe but also provoke discomfort or fear in others. Their insights challenge the conventional knowledge that humanity clings to, exposing the limitations and ignorance that were inherited after the sin. This tension between admiration and fear explains why society’s responses to geniuses are so polarized: they are either revered as gateways to lost wisdom or rejected as threats to the fragile equilibrium of human understanding. Moreover, the yetzer hara fuels this polarization by amplifying feelings of envy and inadequacy in the presence of genius. Instead of viewing extraordinary wisdom as an opportunity for growth and inspiration, the yetzer hara leads people to see it as a threat, encouraging them to either idolize it to the point of dependency or attack it out of resentment. The key to resolving this tension lies in rejecting jealousy and embracing contentment, understanding that the value of wisdom — like the value of wealth — does not diminish because someone else possesses more of it. Only then can humanity truly celebrate and learn from those who embody the rare connection to deeper truths. I also believe that in the era of redemption and the end of days, wisdom will once again become freely accessible. However, the capacity of individuals to grasp this wisdom will not be equal, as each person’s capacity will reflect the peak of their own potential. Unlike before the sin, when humanity’s capacity for understanding was equal but at its lowest point — absolute zero — post-redemption, each individual will reach the fullest potential of their capacity. Paradoxically, had Adam and Eve not sinned, humanity would never have been able to achieve its ultimate potential. Although wisdom would have remained universally available, no one would have had the capacity to truly comprehend or internalize it. The sin, while forbidden, was an integral part of humanity’s development, enabling us to grow, struggle, and ultimately achieve greater levels of understanding and fulfillment.”
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Hozez: King Solomon stands out to me as the greatest genius in history, renowned for his unparalleled wisdom and ability to navigate complex human and divine matters. His contributions to ethical and philosophical thought remain timeless. I also admire Benjamin Netanyahu for his exceptional leadership acumen, strategic thinking, and ability to handle complex geopolitical challenges with remarkable insight and resilience. Both exemplify different facets of genius — one rooted in timeless wisdom, the other in pragmatic leadership.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Hozez: Nothing at all.
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Hozez: Yes.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Hozez: During my military service, I served as an Artificial Intelligence Researcher at the Israeli Ministry of Defense, The Tank and Armored Vehicle Development Authority (RAPAT), conducting pivotal research on neural network architectures to enhance the AI capabilities of the Merkava ‘Barak’ (Lightning) tank. I worked alongside and provided consultation to defense engineers and military personnel in an interdisciplinary setting. Following that, I worked as an Artificial Intelligence Researcher at Zirra Co Ltd., a capital market startup in Israel. Then I served as a Research Assistant at Ono Academic College, starting in my first year of studies, focusing on cognitive psychology and computer science. Later, I worked as a Data Science Intern and subsequently as a Software Developer Intern at Check Point Software Technologies. Currently, I am working as an Artificial Intelligence & Cybersecurity Researcher at MyVoice AI — a company recently approved for Google’s Startups Cloud Program, an initiative by Google supporting promising startups advancing innovation and social impact.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Hozez: I chose this job path because it represents the best implementation of pure logic in practical applications. The fields of artificial intelligence and data science allow me to apply pure-logical frameworks and principles to solve complex problems and deliver impactful solutions. This alignment between abstract reasoning and real-world utility is both intellectually fulfilling and deeply meaningful to me.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Hozez: One of the more significant truths about gifted individuals and geniuses is that their intelligence is primarily innate. Contrary to the widespread myth that anyone can achieve genius through effort and discipline alone, true genius is a rare, intrinsic quality. This does not diminish the importance of hard work, but effort alone cannot create the profound intellectual abilities, unique insights, or exceptional talents that characterize geniuses. Their abilities are a natural gift, and while they may refine and develop them over time, the foundation is something they are born with. A pervasive myth is that gifted individuals are no different from anyone else and that their success is simply the result of better opportunities or more favorable circumstances. This myth is rooted in a misunderstanding of the nature of intelligence and talent. Geniuses often display extraordinary abilities at a young age, before external factors like education or training could play a significant role. Dispelling this myth requires acknowledging that intelligence is not equally distributed and that certain individuals are born with capacities that far exceed the norm. Another myth is that geniuses are universally recognized and celebrated. In reality, society often struggles with how to react to those who deviate far from the average. As I mentioned earlier, the scarcity of true wisdom and the tension it creates leads to polarized reactions — some are revered as exceptional, while others are ridiculed or rejected. This is because their innate gifts can challenge conventional understanding, making people uncomfortable with their own limitations. The truth that dispels these myths is that genius is a natural phenomenon, rooted in biology and genetics. It is not something that can be taught, replicated, or achieved by everyone. However, recognizing this does not mean dismissing the contributions of those who work hard to develop their potential — it simply places genius in its proper context. By understanding that intelligence and talent are innate gifts, we can better appreciate and support those who possess them, while also recognizing the unique role they play in advancing humanity.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Hozez: Science plays an important role in understanding the world, but for me, the foundation of my worldview is pure logic. However, my reliance on logic is not confined to classical logical principles. I critically evaluate even foundational rules of logic, and where they fall short or conflict with deeper truths, I am open to alternative frameworks. My approach emphasizes consistent reasoning and rationality, but it also allows for flexibility when classical logic fails to align with the complexities of reality.
Jacobsen: What ethical, social, economic, and political philosophies make some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Hozez: A social philosophy that resonates with me is one that balances individual freedom, collective responsibility, and a strong belief in meritocracy within a conservative and capitalistic framework. I support the idea that personal autonomy and free markets are fundamental drivers of progress and
innovation. In a meritocratic, capitalistic society, opportunities and rewards should be based on individual talent, effort, and achievement, fostering an environment where hard work and ingenuity are incentivized. From a conservative perspective, I value traditions and systems that provide stability and encourage personal responsibility. While collective responsibility is important, I believe it is best realized through voluntary community efforts and private initiatives, rather than excessive government intervention. A society thrives when individuals are empowered to pursue their potential, with minimal barriers to success, while respecting the values that sustain social cohesion. In this framework, justice is about ensuring fairness of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. By focusing on individual merit and fostering a culture of self-reliance, a conservative and capitalistic philosophy allows individuals to reach their fullest potential, benefiting both themselves and the broader society. At the same time, it promotes accountability and ensures that rewards are aligned with contributions, sustaining long-term growth and prosperity.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Hozez: The metaphysics that resonates with me most is one that integrates both rationalism and a sense of the transcendent. I find the idea of a structured, ordered reality governed by logical principles and universal laws to be compelling. At the same time, I believe there are aspects of existence that transcend human comprehension, pointing to deeper layers of meaning and purpose beyond what empirical science can explain. These layers become especially clear when we examine the duality of the human and divine realms, particularly through the framework of time and process. In the human experience, time operates in what I would describe as a two-dimensional framework. Events unfold linearly, with each one dependent on the one that came before it. This sequence creates a process-driven reality, where outcomes are not immediate but require effort, causality, and progression. This need for processes is a direct consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve, which fragmented an otherwise unified and immediate reality. In this framework, we experience time as a single “slot” in which events build upon one another, each step necessary to reach the next. The constraints of this reality mean that even when one knows what ought to be done, implementing it requires navigating a process fraught with obstacles and delays. By contrast, the divine realm operates in three-dimensional time. Here, each event exists independently, unbound by sequential causality. Each event has its own “slot” of time, enabling it to exist fully and immediately, without dependency on prior events or processes. In this framework, there is no separation between intention and actualization; what is meant to exist does so completely, in a state of harmonious unity. This timeless, process-free state reflects the divine order that existed before the sin of Adam and Eve — a reality where ideals and their realization were one and the same. This distinction between two-dimensional and three-dimensional time illustrates the metaphysical duality between the human and divine realms. In the human world, we are bound by causality and fragmentation, struggling to bridge the gap between ideals and their fulfillment through sequential processes. The divine realm, on the other hand, manifests completeness and immediacy, embodying a harmonious state where intentions are realized without delay. The sin of Adam and Eve introduced the necessity of process into human existence. Before the sin, the divine order allowed for the immediate actualization of principles — what needed to exist simply existed. After the sin, humanity was relegated to a fragmented reality, where processes became an unavoidable intermediary between knowing what should be done and achieving it. This fragmentation is not merely a hindrance but also a mechanism for growth, forcing humanity to grapple with challenges, learn from them, and ultimately develop the capacity to engage with deeper truths. I believe that redemption will reconcile these two metaphysical frameworks. The fragmented, process-driven reality of two-dimensional time will give way to the harmony of three-dimensional time, where the fulfillment of ideals occurs directly, without the need for sequential causality. This metaphysical perspective provides a framework for understanding the interplay between the material and immaterial, the temporal and the transcendent. The physical universe operates according to consistent and observable laws, but it is incomplete without the immaterial dimensions of consciousness, morality, and free will. These immaterial dimensions are not just complementary but essential to fully understanding the nature of reality. The human condition, situated in two-dimensional time, reflects the tension between fragmentation and unity. While it presents challenges, it also allows for growth, self-discovery, and the development of wisdom. The divine realm, operating in three-dimensional time, offers a vision of completeness that transcends the limitations of the human experience. Redemption, in this framework, represents the resolution of this tension, where the barriers imposed by fragmentation are removed, and humanity can experience a more immediate and harmonious reality. Through this metaphysical lens, I see the pursuit of knowledge and the acceptance of mystery as complementary endeavors. Rational inquiry allows us to engage with the material world, uncovering its structures and principles, while humility and introspection open us to the transcendent dimensions that lie beyond empirical understanding. This integration of the rational and the transcendent, the material and the immaterial, offers a meaningful and workable framework for interpreting the complexity of reality and striving for greater understanding.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Hozez: Neither would I have been able to find a greater understanding of the world than in its mathematical structure and orientation toward pure logic, nor will I, for more than twenty years, ever have been considering the possibility of my enduring passion for research being obstructed: not only by the end of my existence but also by any obstacle whatsoever.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Hozez: Gratitude for the life I have been given.
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Hozez:
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Hozez: I believe the afterlife serves as a midpoint between our current realm and the post-redemption realm. It is a transitional state where the soul has fully shed the limitations of the physical world and is entirely prepared for the ultimate realization of existence. However, it is not yet “ready” in the sense that the post-redemption reality has not yet arrived. This perspective aligns with my view that life is part of a larger continuum, where each phase — physical life, the afterlife, and the post-redemption reality — serves a distinct purpose in the journey toward ultimate unity and fulfillment.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Hozez: Felicity, for me, originates from pure logic. The mystery and transience of life can be understood as integral aspects of existence that align with logical principles. While life’s fleeting nature may seem unsettling, it underscores the importance of living meaningfully within the constraints of time. The logic of impermanence teaches us to value each moment, and the mystery invites us to seek understanding, purpose, and connection. Together, they create a harmonious balance, where felicity arises from embracing both the clarity of reason and the depth of what remains beyond comprehension.
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). ‘Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. 2024. “Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Yaniv Hozez on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/hozez.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Robert Jensen is an emeritus professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin and a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. He collaborates with New Perennials Publishing and the New Perennials Project at Middlebury College. He is the author of It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, published in 2024 by Olive Branch Press. Jensen is the coauthor with Wes Jackson of An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity (University of Notre Dame Press, 2022). Jensen reflects on his career and the consequences of his controversial positions. Jensen discusses his critique of trans ideology, radical feminism, and cancel culture. He recounts the silencing of intellectual debates on campuses due to fear of being “cancelled” and describes how his critiques led to professional and personal challenges, including lost friendships. Despite his academic tenure and privileges, Jensen notes the pervasive fear and tension in universities, highlighting his frustrations with the current intellectual climate and his commitment to challenging groupthink.
Keywords: anti-pornography critique, cancel culture dynamics, ecological crisis fear, group conformity issues, intellectual debate suppression, left-liberal professors, trans ideology critique.
Post-Conatus News Meander 2: Prof. Robert Jensen
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Emeritus Professor Robert Jensen. We’re catching up a bit. Although, as I’ve been informed, aging changes the nature of catching up and memory.
Dr. Robert Jensen: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: You wrote several articles for Conatus News, which later became Uncommon Ground Media Limited, transitioning from Benjamin David to Dan Fisher after it was formally incorporated. I came on board around 2016 or 2017. Since then, people have gone their separate ways. That was when I started gaining some traction in writing and other related work.
I conducted many interviews, particularly through that outlet. I wanted to see what people have been doing as an investigative experiment—like, what happened? —and to see if any patterns have emerged. So far, there don’t seem to be any patterns.
There are no patterns—people go off and do their own thing.
Jensen: Yes.
Jacobsen: Since then, you’ve been unique in many ways, not only for taking on a position that could be described as a Tillichian existentialist Christian atheist but also as a radical thinker.
On one hand, you’ve received much criticism within a traditional Christian theological framework. You’ve offered reasoned positions within the current discourse around trans ideology, radical feminism, and left-wing progressive politics, but that has also led to criticism. I commend you for your knack for adopting unique, well-considered positions.
However, these positions have consequences. I know you’ve lost friends and access to certain spaces. So, what’s going on there?
Jensen: Well, thank you. The easiest way to answer your question is to share a bit of my biography. I spent most of my twenties working as a journalist for newspapers across the country and had yet to develop a solid political ideology. Journalists are often not encouraged to engage in that kind of analysis.
When I returned to graduate school at the age of 30 in 1988, I was, in a sense, a blank slate. The first significant political movement I encountered was the feminist critique of pornography. At the same time, I was becoming more generally radicalized, with critiques of capitalism, U.S. imperialism abroad, and white supremacy. It seemed to me that the feminist critique of pornography aligned with those perspectives.
This approach focused on not getting bogged down in individual-level analysis but looking at how systems and structures of power operate. That was a productive framework for me, and I’ve tried to apply it uniformly. Some of the conflicts I’ve encountered, which you referenced, stem from applying that framework consistently, as it creates tension with people on my side of the political spectrum.
The first major tension arose from the radical feminist critique of pornography, which viewed it not as an individual right but as part of a system. At that time—and still today—the liberal left largely embraced pornography, and that’s where the first conflict arose for me.
I’ve been at odds with my friends since the beginning of my intellectual life, now more than 30 years ago. If you fast forward, once I got tenure—which in the U.S. university system means I had essentially lifetime employment. I loved teachingbut I didn’t want to spend much time in the traditional scholarly world. So, I started writing for a more public audience, including the websites you mentioned. I also thought that, as someone with that job security, it was my job not to avoid conflict but to go toward conflict. Not just for the sake of being a gadfly or contrarian but because that keeps movements intellectually healthy, when they debate.
And so, that has led to a whole bunch of scrapes. Sometimes with people on the right, sometimes on the left, and sometimes with everybody. After 9/11, I wrote critically about the U.S. presence in the Middle East and the larger Global South, and that got me in trouble with conservatives. As you mentioned, I started articulating the long-standing radical feminist critique of the ideology of the trans movement, and that got me in trouble with the left. How does a Christian theology that doesn’t assert a supernatural divine presence work? In other words, can you be a Christian without believing in God? of course, there’s a long tradition of Christian atheism and Christian agnosticism, and I spent a few years exploring that. More recently—and this is the conclusion—I’ve been writing critically about the depth of the multiple cascading ecological crises. There are no solutions to many of the problems we face if by solutions we mean keeping the current modern world going. That seems to annoy everybody because everyone has their preferred solution for how we will get out of that trap.
That’s a long-winded way of saying I had an extraordinary position. I had a job I loved, teaching college in an institution where they couldn’t fire me. I had the status of professor, which gives you credibility. I had been a journalist, so I knew how to write for a public audience. I didn’t plan any of this.
It’s just how things unfolded as I tried to do things that were interesting to me and useful to the larger world.
Jacobsen: One part of that earlier response mentioned how you had these back-and-forths with friends over these scrapes. At the same time, more recent commentary has been that you’ve lost friends and access to things. That’s a new transition in terms of your commentary. So yes, what is the distinction there, and why?
Jensen: Well, take the radical feminist critique of pornography, prostitution, and what I call the sexual exploitation industries. I had a lot of left-liberal friends who didn’t like that critique. Still, it never led to a break, either personally or politically.
But when I started critiquing trans ideology—and I wrote that first article in 2014, a decade ago now—the reaction was different. It was still rooted in that same radical feminist critique as the anti-porn material. Still, something had changed around the trans issue. The liberal left had embraced it as a red line. If you weren’t supportive of all trans-political demands, you were somehow just a reactionary. When I wrote that, I was not surprised because I knew these tensions existed, but I guess I was disappointed that many of my colleagues, comrades, and friends back-pedaled from engagement.
Some people I’d worked with politically—but weren’t particularly close friends with—just stopped communicating with me. We had worked on organizing projects before, and then they just stopped responding to emails and phone calls. Okay, you cut those folks loose. More disappointing was losing friends, people I knew personally, who didn’t necessarily stop talking to me immediately but refused to engage on the issue. They didn’t want to be seen with me in public, apparently fearing that associating with me publicly would lead some to assume they endorsed a critique of trans ideology as well.
Some of those relationships didn’t survive either, which is a shame. I’m not saying that political disagreements should never cause a break. For example, if someone I considered a friend became a raving pro-Trump racist misogynist in ways I hadn’t seen before, I doubt I would stay friends with them. It would not be easy to do.
So, I’m not saying that political ideas don’t or shouldn’t affect personal relationships. What was striking, however, is that people didn’t debate me. They should have told me why I was wrong. They just denounced me and left. Something else occurs when people refuse to engage with a well-intentioned and logical critique.
It’s not just that they disagree with you; they’re afraid of something. That’s been my experience with the critique of trans ideology. It wasn’t simply disagreement leading to conversation, which is what usually happens. Instead, it led to denouncement and separation, which is never healthy—politically, intellectually, or personally.
Jacobsen: Politically, denunciation can sometimes function as currency, but the lack of conversation is my root issue. At the same time, the American First Amendment remains key for many people.
As you make nuanced distinctions in conversations or articles—for instance, on the critique of pornography—you do give credit to those who critique it from an entirely different frame, like conservatives critiquing it from a moral or transcendentalist perspective. They may view it through the lens of oppression and exploitation but from a moral standpoint. It’s a transcendentalist moral frame of mind in their critique of pornography.
But you come to the same conclusion: this seems wrong. The premises and arguments are different, but you acknowledge the validity of their conclusion in a way.
Jensen: Yes, if I can interrupt you, that’s a good example.
There are a variety of people we would consider conservative or religiously motivated who critique pornography. Some of them I have no intersection with because I would consider them reactionary—they are virulently anti-gay and anti-lesbian, for instance. It’s hard to work with people who don’t recognize the humanity of your friends and colleagues. On the other hand, the conservative anti-pornography movement has several people I consider allies, even though we fundamentally disagree on the nature of religion and conservative politics.
But I’ve interacted with them, as have some of my other feminist colleagues, in productive ways. For instance, if you look at the conservative anti-porn movement, it has embraced a lot of the ideas and language of the feminist movement. They discuss the importance of moral considerations and harm to women and children in ways that reflect feminist insights. To give you an example, I spoke at one of those conferences. I gave what I thought was a fairly hard-hitting critique of patriarchy.
Some men, especially the older men in the audience, were not excited about this. But I saw that some younger people, especially the younger women, were much more engaged. In that case, I was under no illusions about the political and intellectual differences, but engaging was important.
I default to engagement only if there’s something to be gained. I’m not sure I would go to a KKK rally to argue against white supremacy because, in that case, the engagement probably won’t lead to much. So, everyone makes political and intellectual decisions about when and where to spend energy. Like most things, there isn’t a hard and fast rule.
Context and objectives determine how you proceed.
Jacobsen: And there has been a story in some distant news that I vaguely recall about an African American individual who befriended a member of the KKK. Over time, this person became an actual friend. I believe they even apologized and renounced their KKK association.
Jensen: Yes, and that has happened to many.
Jacobsen: So, it can happen, but is there a distinction between the 1990s style of disagreement and discourse, where people remained friends, versus the late 2010s and 2020s?
Jensen: Well, certainly, there’s been an intensification. Let’s take that period—the late eighties and early nineties. I started teaching at the University of Texas in 1992, and the buzzword was “culture wars.” In fact, at the University of Texas, there had been a big dispute over a freshman textbook that some deemed too politically correct. So, “culture wars” and “political correctness” were the terms of debate, and those debates could get heated.
Today, those terms—PC and culture wars—are still around, but now “cancel culture” and increasing polarization have taken over. In a way, it’s the same debate, just intensified. People’s anger and fear seem to have escalated.
Fear often motivates the quickness to anger when someone disagrees with you. Most of human beings’ more negative qualities are motivated by fear. That’s true from my self-reflection. When I behave badly, it’s usually out of fear. So, that is a problem.
In other words, the fundamental nature of the debate about intellectual life and its politicized nature hasn’t changed, but everything is more intense. My working hypothesis, which can’t be proved, is that part of this is that even among people who deny climate change or aren’t worried about environmental issues, there’s a general understanding that things are falling apart for the modern human experiment.
We are drawing down the planet’s ecological capital at a rate that can only be sustained longer. There’s a fear that this high-energy, high-technology lifestyle, which the affluent world has become accustomed to—and which many in the non-affluent world aspire to—can’t continue much longer. But it’s comfortable.
I don’t consider myself wealthy, and I see myself as a rather frugal person, but I own a car and have a house heated with natural gas that I rely on if it gets too cold for the wood stove. I live with a level of comfort that is extraordinary in historical terms. People often point out that middle-class individuals in the developed world today live better than the kings and princes of old. It’s hard to know how to let go of that level of comfort that the modern world provides to so many of us. People are afraid of it, whether they admit it or not, whether they even understand it or not.
There’s a terror about what’s ahead. Terrified people often give in to their worst instincts. I’m not preaching from on high—that’s true of me, you, the left, my feminist colleagues, and all of us. So, how to respond to that fear more productively is one of the crucial political questions.
Jacobsen: Many changes from social media have amplified some of that polarization.
Jensen: Yes.
Jacobsen: Also, most disagreements now are either professional or online insults. That is the nature of the discourse. Occasionally, there are physical incidents, like the knife attack on comedian Dave Chappelle while on stage. So, there can be instances like that, but generally, it’s emotional and verbal abuse, professional sabotage, and online insults.
Jacobsen: What are you noticing regarding how people’s careers are damaged or their emotional lives upset for some temporary period?
Jensen: Before we move on to that, I do think we shouldn’t underestimate the physical violence that happens as a result of all this. There are occasional news stories about the most egregious political debates leading to fights. I think a lot about the role and status of women. There’s a lot of what you could call everyday violence, harassment, and abuse that—especially in an increasingly misogynistic political environment—gets ramped up. It’s often invisible because it’s part of the background of everyday life, and that concerns me.
But you’re right that most of the news coverage focuses on people who are professionally censured or abused on social media. Much of this is discussed under the term “cancel culture.” Here, you see the breakdown of the analysis. The right makes a big deal out of cancel culture, claiming that anyone who makes an off-colour joke or said something racist 20 years ago is immediately cancelled. Of course, as far as I can tell, the right doesn’t care about the freedom to critique. They’re using it politically. The term we hear is “weaponizing” all of this. So, if you read right-wing media, cancel culture is about to destroy everything good about America.
Unfortunately, some on the left respond by saying cancel culture isn’t real or that the few examples don’t matter. Well, that’s not accurate. I’m no longer teaching; I’m not on a college campus anymore, but I have many friends who are. I saw the beginnings of this process before I retired. Many people on college campuses are muting themselves, avoiding participation in important intellectual debates out of fear of being cancelled.
The trans issue is the one I have the most experience with, but racial issues as well. So yes, cancel culture is real. It’s not destroying the American Republic like right-wing people say. Still, it’s also not trivial, as too many on the left claim.
Jacobsen: When assessing complex phenomena, how is social media exacerbating this?
Jensen: What should we do about the possibility of controlling social media? Should social media be subject to new restrictions and regulations from the government? How should social media companies police their sites? All of these are complex questions that don’t have easy answers. But we can’t pretend the underlying tensions don’t make those questions relevant.
Jacobsen: Now, who do you think is being impacted more? We’re not talking about cancel culture destroying the American Republic or saying it doesn’t exist. Still, it’s affecting people professionally—whether through speaking engagements or teaching positions. These are things you can catalogue to a decent degree. Is it affecting people on the left, in the center, or on the right more?
Jensen: Well, looking at this issue by issue is probably most useful. The cancel culture that the right makes the most noise about is when people accused of racism are cancelled.
For instance, a University of Pennsylvania law professor has been censured. If you look at her comments, they are pretty egregious. You can imagine that if you were a Black student in her class, it would feel like a hostile environment. And we do have a legal concept of a hostile climate, where through words, a professor cannot create an atmosphere in which students can’t access the education they’re there for.
All right, to make a simple analogy—and I don’t want to seem glib—but I’m from North Dakota. There aren’t that many people from North Dakota. Suppose I had a professor when I was a student who hated North Dakotans and always made jokes about how it’s surprising any North Dakotan ever got into college. In that case, I can imagine that wouldn’t feel good. I wouldn’t trust that professor’s ability to grade me fairly.
Those kinds of concerns are real. But on the flip side, if freedom of speech and academic freedom are meaningful concepts, there has to be latitude for people—we might say—to be stupid. So, that’s a balance. You’re balancing the importance of freedom of speech against the real harm that happens when certain kinds of speech alienate others or make them afraid that they can’t be in a classroom. All of these concerns are real.
And so, when the right complains about cancel culture, it’s mostly or often about racial issues. On the other hand, my experience, as we’ve been pointing out, is with the trans movement, which has come after not only me but many others, especially feminists. I must say that the problems I’ve had are rather minimal compared to some of my female feminist colleagues. Gender is relevant here because women tend to receive more direct and threatening attacks. So, I’ve had people refuse to talk to me.
I have had speaking engagements cancelled once people found out I had written about this. If I were still teaching (I retired in 2018), I’m sure there would be students filing grievances against me. All that is unpleasant and annoying and generally creates a climate where people are afraid to speak. But I also know female feminist colleagues who have been physically attacked by trans activists or had their work life made so miserable that they quit rather than continue because the institution wouldn’t support them.
All right. Those are serious problems, not just for the affected individuals, but because they suppress important dialogue about a complex and troubling set of public policy issues. And I know I’m going on, but let me make another point. My critique of the trans movement is not that people don’t have the right to struggle with the sex-gender system in the way they want.
It’s when public policy demands have anti-feminist implications. For instance, males who now identify as female or women—depending on the terms you want to use—are allowed to compete in athletics, which gives them an inherent advantage over the women competing. That will slowly erode the integrity of girls and women’s sports. Well, that’s a public policy question. It’s not just about how an individual feels; it’s about what we as a society are going to do to set rules for things like sports participation, locker rooms, scholarships, or any number of areas where we make distinctions between male and female for legitimate reasons related to women’s safety, women’s ability to compete, and rectifying long-standing inequalities that have disadvantaged women.
Jacobsen: And in public discourse, there’s been at least one organization or group of people on a website cataloging the number of awards in sports that would have gone to women but were instead awarded to a trans woman. Based on your knowledge of inherent differences, such as strength, what do people typically push back against when you present a nuanced and considered concern about some of these issues?
Jensen: Well, it’s funny when you say “presentation.” I don’t think I’ve ever given a public lecture specifically about the trans issue. The reason is that nobody wants the heat. I give lectures about other things where the issue may arise, or people will shout me down. But I’ve done most of that work in writing—two chapters in books over the last 10 years and several articles available online.
The most striking reaction to my writing—and I appreciate your observation that the writing is nuanced. I try to write, especially on controversial issues, in accurate ways, logically sound, and take into consideration the complexity—and I think that my writing on the trans issue does just that.
The most striking response to my writing on the trans issue has been almost total silence. There’s simply no engagement with it. Let me give you an example. I sent the current book, which includes a chapter critiquing trans ideology, to an environmental activist I know.
He replied, “Thank you for the book” and offered several complimentary remarks. So I wrote back and asked, “Do I have your permission to use those comments in publicity for the book?”
And he wrote back, “No, please don’t do that.” He said, “I probably disagree with you on the trans issue, but I haven’t read that chapter yet, and I don’t have time to read that chapter, so let’s not.” In other words, you could sense the fear in his email. Not only did he ask not to be associated with my critique of trans ideology, but he didn’t even want to read the critique. I’m speculating here, but his thinking was: “I don’t want to read the chapter, not because I’ll disagree with you, but because I might agree with you—and then I’d have to deal with that.”
I’ve had friends tell me they won’t read my work on trans issues. I don’t think it’s because they’re angry. If they read it and realized they agreed with me, they would have to choose how to present themselves publicly and respond to questions. Whatever one thinks about the trans issue, it’s not a good situation when people are so afraid of the responses that they refuse to even engage with the question. That can’t be good.
And I don’t just mean it can’t be good for those of us critiquing trans ideology. It can’t be good for trans people. This is part of what I argue in the chapter of my new book. For instance, there’s almost a complete ban in the public conversation on discussing where the experience of trans identity comes from in medical terms. What is the etiology of transgender identity? Well, there’s a surprising silence on that for various political reasons.
But how does it benefit people struggling with gender dysphoria if the root causes of gender dysphoria aren’t explored? I’ve never seen an example quite like the trans issue, where good-faith, well-intentioned engagement is shut down so completely under the argument that this helps people. I don’t see how it does at all.
And, of course, when the nuanced, sensible critiques that we’re talking about are shut down, what voices critiquing trans ideology do you hear? Mostly from the right wing. And a lot of those critiques from the right are not subtle. They need to be more nuanced. Most of them are patriarchal in nature. They want to restore the primacy of traditional patriarchal norms.
Jacobsen: To be mindful of time, as you were getting started, you had a professorship, so you had certain protections and earned privileges that others, like students, don’t have. You worked your way up and proved your academic merit.
Jensen: Yes, exactly. And with that, I had certainly privileges that students and others don’t.
Jacobsen: So, if you have younger individuals, in their early twenties, who agree with the critiques you’re making, and they have trans friends and want to maintain the dignity and compassion of their trans friends and colleagues while taking into account sensible critiques, they, as you’re noting, are often expressing some fear. How do they express themselves honestly when living under the real or perceived threat of consequences?
Jensen: Absolutely, and that’s true not only of the trans issue. Let me tell you a quick story.
Remember, I quit teaching in 2018 before the most intense expressions of these political ideas circulated on campuses. But I was teaching a class that dealt with social justice issues, and there was only one Black student in a class of about 30 mostly white students. We were discussing issues of racism and white supremacy, and the Black student commented, and I could see the white students tensing up.
I saw an opportunity and said, “Let’s pause for a second.” I turned to the Black student and said, “I know you don’t want to speak for all Black people, but let me ask you about your reaction. Do white people ever say things so stupid you want to slap them upside the head?” She laughed and said, “Yes.”
Everyone chuckled a bit, and then I asked, “Does the fact that white people say stupid things mean you never want to talk to another white person again?” She said, “No, of course not.”
Then I turned to the white students and asked, “Are you ever afraid of saying something so stupid that someone might want to slap you upside the head?” You could see this sigh of relief, and they said, “Yes, we’re afraid of saying the wrong thing.”
I replied, “But are you willing to speak if that’s part of an honest engagement?” They said yes. So here we were, on the campus of one of the top universities in the country, and everyone was afraid. I asked, “How is that fear going to help us critique and understand white supremacy?”
The white kids started talking, and some other students of colour started talking. It was the most productive student conversation I’ve ever seen in a class in my teaching experience. It happened because I was willing to take the chance, knowing that I had privilege and power—and the students didn’t.
Well, I don’t tell that story to be self-aggrandizing. There were lots of opportunities I could have done better in doing that. But at that moment, I was so frustrated that I didn’t see any other option. Multiply that by a hundred or a thousand, and you can understand that the atmosphere on college campuses for students is incredibly tense.
Students feel that stress all the time. The only way to bust through it is for faculty to be the ones to take chances. Here, I’m going to be prejudiced, okay? Damn me if you must, but in my experience, university professors are among the most cowardly class of professionals I’ve ever met.
And it’s ironic because, especially for professors with tenure and job protection, they’re surprisingly unwilling to engage like this. That reminds us that group loyalty is a powerful motivator. Suppose you’re a left-liberal professor, and it’s assumed that you don’t say certain things among left-liberal professors. In that case, it doesn’t matter how much freedom of speech or academic freedom you have—you won’t say those things. Your need to be part of the group will outweigh what I would call the professional obligation to push forward and challenge people. People might ask, “Well, you were a professor. Are you saying you were cowardly?”
And here’s where individual differences matter. The best training I’ve had to be a somewhat iconoclastic professor was being a completely weird, nerdy, freaky kid who never fit in and never felt my identity was tied to group membership. That’s just an accident of history—that’s the kid I was.
So, I grew up knowing that being part of the group would not save me. And that served me well. I’ve never been so glad I was a freaky kid until I became a professor. I’m not saying that I have never felt a part of groups or that I have never stayed quiet to remain in a group. But the older I get, the less I care about that.
Jacobsen: Well, this has been an exciting catch-up, I’ll tell you that. There is no pattern yet.
Jensen: There almost certainly won’t be—or at least not one that’s observable.
Jacobsen: Again, thank you so much for your time. It was lovely catching up.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). Post-Conatus News Meander 2: Prof. Robert Jensen ’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Post-Conatus News Meander 2: Prof. Robert Jensen ’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Post-Conatus News Meander 2: Prof. Robert Jensen ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-2.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Post-Conatus News Meander 2: Prof. Robert Jensen .” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/conatus-news-2.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Updated November 23, 2024.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Marco Ripà gives some opening commentary on his involvement in the dynamic style high-range test. Roberto Enea talks about his work on DynamIQ, a dynamically generated spatial IQ test. Enea, inspired by Marco Ripà, aimed to create a test that minimizes the “training effect” and resists cheating, making it suitable for repeated use. Developing DynamIQ involved balancing design, coding, security, and fairness. The test generates questions dynamically with consistent difficulty across tests. Enea acknowledged challenges in norming tests due to low and self-selected high-IQ samples and emphasized the need for diverse populations. DynamIQ avoids linguistic bias and ensures privacy by anonymizing user data. Its credit system allows economical, flexible use over time.
Keywords: cheating prevention, dynamic IQ tests, high-IQ samples, linguistic bias, norming challenges, privacy protection, spatial reasoning.
On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As an opening question, what is your involvement in this dynamic style test?
Marco Ripà: Since I deleted all my data around early 2017, when I left the project, my memory of the test construction and normalization process is limited. Additionally, my memory isn’t solid. I do recall following Paul Cooijmans’s guidelines at the time, and if I’m not mistaken (we should verify this to be specific), I also communicated with him about the test norming to ensure everything was done correctly. The info I used to norm the test at the time also included the testee previous scores on reputable HRTs and supervised tests. Cooijmans and I talked about the z-scores method between September 3rd and September 4th 2016.I used the z-scores instead of the rank equations since our norming sample was too small for the latter method.
I remember choosing circles, triangles, and squares to create a culture-fair test with geometric properties. This decision was based on my initial idea to develop a spatial version of the ENNDT, which I had previously developed with Gaetano Morelli (seethis paper). Regarding the colour selection—yellow, green, and white/blank—we opted for these colours to avoid underestimating the performance of colour-blind individuals.
Here is a summary of the entire story (please feel free to ask Roberto for more details):
In 2011, I envisioned developing a dynamic high-range test featuring thousands of unique software-generated items. Thus, this would ensure that any collection would share the same norm. Initially, we planned to use OEIS sequences characterized by unique properties. A few years later, with Gaetano, we developed the ENNDT tests, as described in the paper above. However, this test proved extremely challenging. Only highly skilled individuals achieved positive scores, making it impractical for screening purposes—even among the gifted populations.
Our next goal was to create a spatial, culture-fair IQ test for the high range that wouldn’t require participants to be exceptionally gifted. This was a more difficult challenge than the previous one. I enlisted another Italian Mensa member to help us. Roberto Enea joined the project, handling the programming and technical aspects, which I couldn’t manage myself. This collaboration involved over six months of work.
After internal testing, the tool was ready. We began beta testing. Then I normalized it using the standard techniques described by Paul Cooijmans. However, that was the last time I engaged in such work. I can’t recall the details. There were a lot of linear regression attempts and the corresponding R² values.I left the project in early 2017.
Subsequently, I deleted all documentation related to the test, the item projects, and the data on testees’ performances, which only included initials, raw scores, and attempt numbers. So, I can’t provide more technical information than Roberto, who has been the sole owner of the spatial dynamic test platform since 2017.
Nonetheless, I’m pleased to receive credit for the concept I envisioned over a dozen years ago—a true dynamic IQ test generator developed by software that is resilient against cheating (at least in the pre-ChatGPT era).
Anyway, I created the items following my initial idea of a mathematical method to combine those three geometrical shapes and Roberto wrote the program and created the tool to make the whole thing happen. I remember that the idea was to divide every shape in corners and/or sides and merge different shapes together.
Now I have to go.
Jacobsen: When did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Roberto Enea: Hi Scott, thanks for this interview. Actually, I was mostly interested in solving tests rather than constructing them but I have found Marco’s idea about implementing a system to automatically generate IQ tests very interesting and challenging.
Jacobsen: What were the realizations about the tests, at the time, and the need to develop yours?
Enea: At the time we started working on DynamIQ there was nothing similar meaning no systems that were able to generate dynamically spatial IQ tests. We were conscious of being creating something completely new.
Enea: This is more a question for Marco since he had the initial idea. The main idea was creating an IQ test that cannot be cheated and where the “training effect” has a lower impact so that you can take it several times without loosing accuracy. That is a great idea because it could be used to monitor the actual efficacy of brain training systems. The initial idea was making DynamIQ also something that could be used by professionals and academics but we never accomplished this final step.
Jacobsen: Any word of credit to others who helped in the development of this test?
Enea: Unfortunately, not. DynamIQ has been developed only by Marco and me
Jacobsen: How does design and coding play into the construction of DynamIQ?
Enea: I would say 50% designing and 50% coding. Design is not just about the test design but it includes other aspects like security, anti-cheating, data privacy, etc.
Jacobsen: What skills and considerations, in an overview, seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Enea: The main challenge of creating a dynamic iq test is defining a sort of generation rule for test questions rather than defining the single test question, because you have to automatically generate tests whose difficulty should increase during the test (let’s say from the 1st question to the 25th) but it should also be almost the same for the same question across different tests (the question n. 13 should have almost the same difficulty across all the tests generated). This requires a deep understanding about how spatial tests work “behind the scenes”, meaning that you have to know what makes a spatial test more difficult than another one beyond the intuition of it.
Jacobsen: How do we know with confidence listed norms are, in fact, reasonably accurate on many of these tests?
Enea: In my opinion the answer is that we cannot be 100% sure. Most of the time the norms are computed by the authors and they are not verified by other peers. Unfortunately, until there isn’t a rigorous scientific validation of the test you cannot be sure about the accuracy declared.
Jacobsen: What are the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and a tendency in a type of personality? Pragmatically speaking, for really good statistics, what is your ideal number of test-takers? You can’t say, “8,126,000,000.”
Enea: Rather than being the number of test takers the problem is the sample composition. For example, selecting people in the high range is not difficult. There are a lot of test takers coming from High IQ societies like Mensa who have an official assessment of their IQ. It is much more difficult selecting people in the low and middle range because in a lot of countries like Italy IQ assessment is not a common practice so most of the people are not aware of their IQ. For this reason, it is difficult to collect a sample that is homogeneous enough to actually represent the whole population.
Jacobsen: Is English-based bias a prominent problem throughout tests? Could this be limiting the global spread of possible test-takers of these tests rather than limiting them to particular language spheres?
Enea: About DynamIQ that is definitely not a limit since it is a spatial test. No language knowledge is required.
Enea: About this I would like to clarify that sharing information about website usage does not mean sharing results. The website collects anonymous information about the provenance of the visitors and other information that are usually useful for marketing but these are not related to the test itself. The test is anonymized also because we don’t collect any personal information of the user. We store the email used for the registration but there is no information stored that can connect the email to the real person.
Enea: The credit system allows you to buy several tests executions in one shot so that the user can save some money. The credit never expires so you can take the test even several years after the purchase.
Jacobsen: With the advent of the internet, cheating on individual questions and on whole tests is a possibility and a reality on these high-range tests. How do we prevent such occurrences? Also, things like the law and ethics.
Enea: That is actually the main purpose of DynamIQ: avoiding cheating in IQ tests. The number of combinations you can have avoids that the user can somehow “memorize” the answers. Of course, in the age of AI, it might be possible to cheat using systems like ChatGPT but at least for now it seems that they are not smart enough to solve this kind of tests. There is a challenge in place called ARC prize designed by researchers at Google that is focused on creating AI model to solve spatial tests. The tests designed in the ARC prize are quite simple, not comparable to DynamIQ. Nevertheless, the best result so far is 42% accuracy meaning that the best model fails almost 60% of the times.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Roberto.
Enea: My pleasure.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). ‘On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. ‘On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 26: Roberto Enea, DynamIQ’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 26: Marco Ripà and Roberto Enea, DynamIQ [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-26.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert is an educator, independent researcher, and writer specializing in philosophy and sociology of education. She holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge, with her research focusing on the role of knowledge in education and its redefinition in the late 20th century. She is co-editor of What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, Subjects and the Pursuit of Truth and regularly writes for academic and public audiences on issues like liberal education, aesthetics, and social realist epistemology. Dr. Sehgal Cuthbert also directs “Don’t Divide Us,” a campaign against divisive educational policies. Cuthbert critiques contemporary ideological shifts in education that focus on vulnerability and trauma, leading to changes in curriculum prioritization based on race and gender. She argues that such changes undermine universal principles, evidenced by a Cambridge lecturer’s suggestion that there were multiple “universalisms.” Cuthbert believes this approach confuses knowledge systems and diverges from empirical philosophy. She also recounts her own experience of being disinvited from a conference due to her universalist views on race. Despite opposition, she continues to advocate for a liberal, objective approach to education and anti-racism.
Keywords: Cambridge education research, contemporary ideological shifts, divisive educational policies, liberal education advocacy, objective anti-racism stance, social realist epistemology, universal principles in education..
Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here for another round of post-Conatus News. So, what’s new? You got your Ph.D. What else? What was your thesis?
Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert: The thesis was on liberal education based on sociology and the philosophy of education. It made a liberal case for a knowledge-based classical education. Philosophically, it addressed questions of epistemology and core educational values, which were important then but have become even more significant as they entered public debate, especially with the social justice agenda impacting schools. Since then, I’ve been involved in work related to this. When I finished my PhD, I got involved in politics. I stood for the Brexit Party because I believed it was necessary to respect the democratic vote.
It felt like the right thing to do, though I have to admit it didn’t make me very popular in Cambridge, where I lived. I finished my PhD but remained active in academic circles, particularly Cambridge. I continued teaching intermittently until a few years ago. Still, most of my time has been devoted to running a campaign group called Don’t Divide Us. It was established in the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd. Our campaign promotes a common-sense approach to race that rejects the social justice and critical race theory perspectives on race and anti-racism.
It’s one thing to speculate on these topics in a university seminar. Still, it’s another when they are used as guiding principles in schools, especially primary schools, where it re-racializes culture in an unhealthy way. Don’t Divide Us was set up quite spontaneously after lockdown, as many parents and teachers began reaching out to us, mainly to me as the press and public-facing representative, expressing disbelief at what was happening in their children’s schools. They were shocked that their young children, sometimes as young as five or six years old, were being taught about white privilege. You’re familiar with this, particularly in America and possibly Canada.
Our work involves:
Offering individual advice.
Publishing reports.
Briefing interested politicians and advisors.
Engaging with the press when necessary. We’ve
produced two reports examining the growth of the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) sector, particularly in Britain’s public institutions and schools.
I also continue to write, crossing between academic and public-facing writing. Most of my work revolves around race, decolonization, reparations, and similar topics. I’m trying to dig deeper into these race-related issues, exploring sociologically what’s happening as society moves away from and even rejects fundamental social democratic norms that shaped Britain’s post-war development.
Jacobsen: How would you characterize the academic style at Cambridge, not the people themselves but, the content and style of teaching in higher learning?
Cuthbert: Our son recently completed both his undergraduate and master’s degrees at Cambridge as well.
I did my PhD there. I also did my other degrees at other institutions. The Oxbridge system, in principle, is sound. When done correctly, the idea of tutorials and lectures leaves little room for students to game the system. You can, for example, use AI to assist with an essay, but when you’re in a seminar room and being questioned by your lecturer or supervisor—if they’re any good—you’ll be thoroughly tested. That said, I can’t say, hand on heart, that Cambridge was consistently rigorous when I was there (I was awarded my PhD in 2017).
There are signs that things are not as they should be. The rigour varies across departments. It’s not just about the curriculum but rather how a new ideology is shaping academic progress, the selection of professorships, lectures, and the academic work that’s encouraged versus that which is ignored. I saw some of this when I was there, and it still needs to be improved. The whole system has yet to deteriorate. Still, there are certainly worrying signs, and what’s more concerning is the lack of political will to address these issues, whether at universities or nursery schools.
Jacobsen: Now, if we’re talking about the Cambridge style of academic teaching and content delivery, where students are put under considerable pressure by their advisors and professors when done properly, what aspects of the ideology you’re referring to are eroding those standards or removing key pillars if I understand you correctly?
Cuthbert: It’s a combination of factors. Most notably, it’s when the criteria for selecting academic and administrative staff shift from focusing on core skills or essential knowledge to more secondary criteria, such as how well they can quantify their experience regarding equity outputs or how they can shape research proposals to meet equity requirements. These are now mandatory statements in funding applications, for instance. As a result, you get a narrowing of viewpoints that are legitimized. While some individuals may hold different views, the general culture won’t be conducive to giving those broader perspectives equal favour. Some viewpoints will be marginalized.
That’s the most insidious and corrosive issue. There are also other factors, such as mounting financial pressures on British universities. To cope, they’ve been admitting more international students since that brings in more money, but there needs to be more consideration of the impact. For example, I’ve spoken to lecturers who have told me that some foreign students won’t speak up in seminars, especially Chinese students or students from some Middle Eastern countries. They’ll approach the lecturers individually to talk, but they remain silent in the classroom.
At first, the lecturer thought it was a cultural difference and that, as they grew more confident, they might participate more. But that didn’t happen; it’s more like political fear. I can’t say how widespread it is, but it’s not unfamiliar to many lecturers. That’s one aspect of the issue.
Jacobsen: There are antipodes on this particular topic. On one hand, some say this type of fear doesn’t exist at all. On the other hand, some believe it’s a significant problem, practically shouting, “The sky is falling! What are we going to do?” For the sake of argument, to set the goalposts, where do you see yourself on this spectrum? I understand it’s a complex issue with multiple variables—so it’s spectra—but I’d like to know where you stand for the sake of this discussion.
Cuthbert: I lean away from complacency. I’m not a catastrophist, but ignoring the signs would be more catastrophic. This might not describe every university or every classroom. Still, when cultural and academic authorities largely share a similar worldview, even if they are a minority, they tend to be influential. They hold the levers that establish the main narrative and the primary ethical norms. As a result, a diversity of viewpoints has been squeezed out.
It’s now totally acceptable in Britain to casually assert that, of course, Britain is a racist country. No proof is required, and questioning this, if not outrightly labeled as racist, is considered odd. In a white-majority country, continuing to push this narrative will likely provoke a backlash. People will start framing their grievances similarly identically, which could lead to further social fragmentation. We’re not there yet, but the signs aren’t good. Unless we see leadership in our institutions and politics to acknowledge the problem, things will continue down a worrying path.
So, no, I’m not in the “everything’s gone to hell” camp. That said, when I talk to some young people — there are still good courses out there. Not all courses or new initiatives are rubbish. For instance, while I’ve written vehemently against decolonization as it’s currently framed, I’m certainly not against expanding and enriching the range of sources we study, particularly in the humanities and literature. There’s fantastic work being done in other countries, though much of it isn’t happening in Britain or America. For example, I’ve come across some interesting philosophical works from India, where scholars engage with thinkers that British academics used to study but no longer do.
Most sociology reading lists rarely go back further than Foucault. If Weber or Durkheim are included, it’s usually to criticize them for being sexist or racist. So, while curiosity and intellectual hunger are still present among young people in Britain, we’ll see further cynicism if they are not met. I don’t think they’ll unquestioningly adopt “woke” ideology or unthinkingly drink the Kool-Aid. Still, but there’s a risk of deeper disillusionment.
What happens is that one way of dealing with it is to switch off—to become disinterested in anything other than your narrow focus of “I’ve got to get this degree, I’ve got to get that grade.” This doesn’t foster a broader humanist outlook. Does that make sense?
Jacobsen: There’s almost a difference in the motivation for education. One motivation is the Enlightenment’s pursuit of knowledge through reason, discourse, and evidence. The other motivation incorporates some of those principles, but to a weaker degree, and is more focused on dismantling what is perceived as systems of oppression.
There’s a distinct difference in orientation between these two approaches. The latter has some humanistic elements but not fully Enlightenment elements. That distinction should be carefully addressed because Enlightenment and humanism, particularly in ethics, are based on evidence-based reasoning and universalism. Everyone should get a fair chance. When you start developing “oppressor versus oppressed systems,” it can have merit in specific contexts. But when applied generally, you begin to see what you were calling re-racialization or the re-essentialization of individuals and groups, where the ethic becomes based on particularism tied to group identity rather than treating individuals as persons.
It inverts the founding principles of structures like the UN and humanistic philosophy, where the emphasis should be on the individual as part of the universal application of principles rather than principles based on group identity. It’s not just an interesting dichotomy; it reflects a subtle yet significant shift that’s difficult to identify.
Cuthbert: Yes, you’re right. These shifts are quite subterranean. There’s a lot of noise and drama on the surface, but the deeper shifts need to be unearthed and articulated better than they are at present. In Britain, the balance between universal principles and their concrete manifestation is shifting significantly, especially with how the Equality Act is applied.
The Equality Act was originally meant to consolidate several specific anti-discrimination acts that had been in place in Britain since the 1960s. Those earlier acts were quite limited and specific to particular areas of work and practices. However, under the Equality Act, the focus has shifted toward a more general policy and, even further, toward a broader cultural change. Using the law to directly change culture and society too often becomes profoundly anti-democratic.
This also runs against longstanding British legal traditions and the relationship between the individual and the state, enshrined since the 17th century. Ideologically, the justification for these changes is often framed through a discourse of vulnerability and trauma. This ties into issues around race and gender, such as the arguments about the need to make environments welcoming for minority groups, otherwise claiming they won’t be able to engage effectively.
But what happens is that this further seals us off, you know, in search of social relationships; it shifts the legal relationships underneath. As you say, it’s throwing any sense of universalism out the window. This was made explicit recently when a student I know was feeling pressure to interpret a particular writer in a specific way that she disagreed with, so she pursued her interpretation.
She told the lecturer “I’m focusing on the universal principles in this writer. I don’t believe universal principles are just a male white privilege,” as suggested. The lecturer denied that they had ever said universal principles were only for white men but added, “All I’m saying is that there are many universalisms.” That’s what’s worrying—a senior lecturer at Cambridge believes there are “many universalisms.”
Jacobsen: It’s in the name. I’ve heard from a Métis colleague in Canada who encounters disagreements about these ideas of “ways of knowing.” It’s not about using different modernized science tools to probe nature more accurately while still adhering to empirical philosophy and naturalism. Instead, it’s the notion that, for instance, there’s a “white male way of knowing things.” This creates a confused epistemology because nature has a unicity—a coherent totality. If you take nature as a whole, you should be able to apply a straightforward, fundamental epistemology to understand it accurately using various tools. However, the method of knowing should remain consistent. Otherwise, nature would present as more confused and incoherent than it does.
Cuthbert: But this also applies to non-science subjects differently. You say nature has a unicity, and I argue that humans do as well. As an Enlightenment supporter, unity comes from our reason or will, in a Kantian sense. That’s how you find unity in diversity or plurality in unity. As we strive to become more human, we do so in historically and culturally specific ways but with shared commonalities. The particular and the universal are not separate—they are two ends of the same pole in humanity.
So, when it comes to choosing books for literature courses, I found it shocking and painful when a writer like Kazuo Ishiguro, a Nobel Laureate whose books are beautiful, was removed from the curriculum. One of his works was perfect for teaching a certain age group in schools, but an unknown writer replaced it, selected purely because of her sex and race. It could be a good book, but it hasn’t stood the test of time—it was written only in the last two or three years.
Moreover, this change was made by the national exam board, the key power holders in the exam system for decades, who casually decided to say, “It’s for our diversity quota.” To me, that’s intellectual vandalism. Even more concerning is the cavalier disregard or the activist commitment to these changes among the elites. Instead of intervening, they call the shots or at least let this happen and look at their shoelaces while it unfolds. More people are speaking up. More individuals and groups are forming, which is a positive sign and gives us hope.
Jacobsen: Two things that come up. I’ve received feedback where people express disagreement in an invective tone toward me or the ideas presented. Primarily, the complaints are that they don’t want me to interview a particular person or they’re upset that I have. As you know, I interviewed many people.
In these interviews, I’ve spoken with individuals from across the spectrum. For instance, I interviewed one of the founders of intelligent design. At the same time, I interviewed one of the main figures on the opposing side. I stand by evolution and natural selection, but I still wanted to interview that person because it would be interesting. More recently, when I’ve encountered such complaints, I respond by thanking people for their opinions and offering them a chance to express their concerns in an interview or even to submit an article to the same publication. I have access. Typically, they either don’t respond or decline.
I see a need for commitment to engage with their disagreement or dissatisfaction, even though I offer an open platform. Sure, personal attacks sting a little, but you move on. I’m noticing that, in many cases, people are arriving at the right conclusions—such as advocating human universalism—but using faulty methodologies. It’s ideological. They may agree with my biases in conclusion, but they lack reliance on empirical methods, rational inquiry, and critical thinking. It’s subtle, but as you said, these things are subterranean but important to bring to the surface.
Cuthbert: Yes, they might intuitively sense the weakness of their argument, which is why they create an epistemological protective barrier around themselves and their ideas. I should mention that I was recently disinvited or “cancelled” from a teachers’ conference. It was quite amusing because the organizer had contacted me and liked my academic work on aesthetics and literature. But two or three days before the event—on a Wednesday evening, with the conference scheduled for that Saturday—I received an email from a friend acting as the intermediary. He apologized and said the organizer had contacted him, stating they needed to disinvite me because five people had emailed him in tears about my participation on the panel.
Jacobsen: Five people at a conference of 500?
Cuthbert: Exactly! There would be 500 people at this conference with many sessions; these five people didn’t have to attend my session. But my mere presence was enough to upset them. They didn’t know my academic work but objected because of my campaigning with Don’t Divide Us. They objected to the fact that we support a universalist approach to race and anti-racism rather than a critical race theory approach.
At first, my reaction was to think, “Well, f*** them, I don’t care.” But after reflecting on it and talking to friends, I realized how dreadful this situation was. This wasn’t just about me—it was about a worldview shared by most people. Still, five individuals claiming trauma were wielding this as a weapon. And the organizer, who completely lacked a spine, caved into them.
We kept things amicable, however. With the help of the Free Speech Union, we organized a separate session, and some of the original speakers agreed to participate. We held our event, and the original conference organizers said they would share the recording with their email list.
So I was quite pleased with how we handled that situation because, you know, we didn’t throw a tantrum or get angry. However, during the conversations with the organizer, I kept pointing out that he had a choice. He didn’t have to listen to those five people. He could have told them, “I know you’re genuinely upset,” because he insisted they were truly upset and not making it up. And I thought, “Do they want to be teachers?” It’s a bit concerning if they’re upset by me—how will they handle a classroom full of 30 teenagers?
But we managed to have a conversation and maintain that slight connection. Honestly, he felt quite embarrassed. He’s a nice guy but didn’t dare to do the right thing.
Jacobsen: Now, I’m not a practicing psychologist or therapist, but what you’re describing seems similar to something called DARVO. Have you heard of it?
Cuthbert: No, what’s DARVO?
Jacobsen: It stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. You must assess each situation individually to determine if bad faith is involved. However, if you have a lecture with 500 people attending and five disagree, they could attend and voice their concerns during the Q&A or not attend. Yet, in these cases, which seem to be happening more and more across the political spectrum—but perhaps a bit more often to conservative voices—the tactic is to claim victimhood over the mere presence of a speaker. Then, they demand that the person be disinvited or cancelled.
It’s not like these people are fleeing their homes in Ukraine or other war-torn areas. Still, it seems like a denial of reality. They attack the presenter and then reverse the roles of victim and offender. The result is that these individuals, acting as aggressors, pretend to be victims.
By doing that, they deny someone’s professional progress. Teachers and speakers often need to be paid better; a lot of their extra income comes from lectures and presentations. So, they’re harming someone’s livelihood. Some people even lose tenure positions over things like this.
Cuthbert: In my case, it wasn’t so much about money, but if I had not responded, it would have been recorded, and I might not have been invited to future events. I get invited to do outreach lectures at colleges occasionally, often for free, because I wouldn’t say I like taking money for educational work. But still, my name could have ended up on a list of “cancelled” educators, and more and more colleges are checking databases to see if people have been involved in controversial topics before inviting them.
My main objection, Scott, was that I didn’t want to let them get away without some pushback. What they were objecting to was a Martin Luther King-style view of anti-racism.
And that’s a respectable and legitimate viewpoint, and it’s one that most people hold. That’s why Don’t Divide Usexists—to stop that perspective from being deauthorized or stigmatized publicly.
Jacobsen: Yes, so, other than that, you’ve earned your PhD, and you’ve published an article through Conatus News. You’ve encountered a couple of controversies similar to some others involved with Conatus. But generally, people have gone off in different directions—some into retirement, others into lecturing, and many have worked internationally. I’m reaching out to people and seeing where they’ve landed.
One woman I know was president of what was then the International Humanist and Ethical Youth Organization (now Young Humanists International), and she was involved with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (now Humanists International). She was deeply engaged in other activities, too. Now she’s a mom of two and helps her husband run a business, which has already turned around £1 million. That’s quite impressive.
Wow, that’s pretty good! I’m happy for them, and I’m happy for you—getting your PhD. People seem to be doing well. As someone still early in my career, I find it fascinating to see where people go. This group was where people published to varying degrees—from one article to many more—and now they’ve gone in various directions.
But no clear patterns. That’s life.
Cuthbert: True, that’s humanity for you. Good luck with everything you want to do. Thanks! Goodbye for now.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Post-Conatus News Meander 1: Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert ’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Patrick Liljegren is a member of the Synaptiq Society and The Glia Society. He achieved a 171 on the IQ test OASIS. Patrick is passionate about audio system tweaks, including the use of crystals. He enjoys eating banana ice cream daily and braving the winter without a jacket. His philosophy emphasizes self-improvement, perseverance, and the importance of having fun. Liljegren’s passion for test construction developed from his interest in cognitive processes and personal experience with traditional IQ tests, which felt limited in measuring deeper logical reasoning. Dissatisfied with repetitive and uninspiring test formats, Liljegren sought to create engaging and enjoyable tests that foster cognitive growth and reflect true intellectual ability. He emphasizes the importance of avoiding biases, maintaining rigorous test design, and ensuring test reliability. His focus is on holistic, multi-domain questions that stimulate deeper problem-solving. For valid results, he values participant engagement and careful test scoring, addressing potential errors and aiming to support test-takers’ growth and confidence.
Keywords: bias in test creation, abstraction importance, heterogeneous tests, test validity, construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis, reducing ambiguity.
On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Patrick Liljegren: This interest in test construction emerged as a natural evolution of my lifelong passion for understanding cognitive processes. After taking numerous IQ tests myself, I realized there was a distinct kind of logic I was using—one that allowed me to engage with problems on a deeper level than these tests seemed to measure. Each test left me with the sense that there was something more to explore, a way of thinking that wasn’t captured by standard approaches.
Over time, I grew increasingly curious about crafting an alternative that included this “deeper logic.” I wanted to create tests that not only challenge conventional boundaries but also engage test-takers with a format that’s more enjoyable and dynamic than rows of text or numbers. In combining rigor with creativity, I hoped to produce tests that would captivate people who, like myself, crave an experience that reflects the true intricacies of high-range cognition. This blend of challenge and engagement was a calling that I couldn’t ignore, and that’s when I truly began dedicating myself to test construction.
Jacobsen: At the time, what were the realizations about the tests and the need to develop yours?
Liljegren: My biggest realization about other people’s IQ tests was that they were, frankly, very boring for most people. The majority of the tests I encountered were filled with repetitive tasks—just text and numbers—making the experience feel more like a tedious obligation than an engaging intellectual challenge. It became clear to me that this format didn’t capture the interest of participants, and I could see why many would be unwilling to invest hours on end in something so monotonous. This realization drove me to create my own tests, ones that would not only be intellectually stimulating but also fun, encouraging people to engage deeply with the process without feeling like it was a chore.
Jacobsen: What are common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust?
Liljegren: A common mistake in creating high-range IQ tests is neglecting the participant’s experience, which can lead to a lack of engagement. If the test is so boring or tedious that people don’t want to spend the necessary time on it, then the test fails to be truly valid. Cognitive ability cannot be accurately measured if participants are rushing through questions or abandoning the test early. A valid test needs to capture the participant’s full cognitive range, which means making it not only intellectually challenging but also engaging enough to keep the participant involved. Without this engagement, the test becomes more of a hurdle than a meaningful assessment.
In the past, when I was a teenager, I took an IQ test administered by a psychologist. At the time, I wasn’t particularly interested in the test, so I rushed through it, not fully engaging with the questions. The result was that I received a score which they deemed as ‘retard level,’ and the feedback was devastating. However, this experience was incredibly eye-opening for me. It made me realize how much external factors—like lack of interest or engagement—can skew a test result, leading to an inaccurate and harmful assessment of one’s abilities. That experience, while painful, inspired me to create tests that are not only challenging but also engaging enough to allow people to truly demonstrate their cognitive potential, free from the constraints of traditional, often discouraging, testing methods.
Jacobsen: What are the counterintuitive aspects in taking tests and making tests in the high-range?
Liljegren: A major issue with traditional tests is that people are often more focused on completing them as quickly as possible to achieve a higher IQ score. They rush through the questions without taking the time to dive deeper into the problems, which leads to surface-level answers. This tendency to prioritize speed over depth contributes to the overall boredom with text- and number-based tests, preventing individuals from fully exploring the underlying logic or the deeper meanings within the questions.
In contrast, my tests break away from this model by incorporating images and humor, which serve to keep participants engaged and entertained. This approach fosters a sense of enjoyment and curiosity, encouraging participants to delve into the problem-solving process with a genuine desire to explore deeper, rather than just rushing to finish. The inclusion of humor makes the experience more relatable and less daunting, while still maintaining intellectual rigor, creating a more enjoyable and effective testing experience.
Jacobsen: What are the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence or as one attempts to measurein the high-range of ability?
Liljegren: The core abilities associated with high-range intelligence are not about speed, as calculators and computers are not truly intelligent. Real intelligence involves the ability to approach a problem from multiple perspectives and select the most logical solution. It’s about having a broad understanding of various concepts and identifying the most reasonable choice. Rushing to solve something often limits the range of perspectives considered. True intelligence requires taking the time to explore different ways of solving the same problem, which can take thousands of hours. It’s akin to exploring a forest and visiting every part to fully understand it and create a complete mental map. This process of deep exploration is essential for making the best decision.
Jacobsen: In an overview, what skills and considerations seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Liljegren: If the author of a test has certain mental limitations or a narrow understanding of basic human behaviors, it can lead to a biased, limited test. This test would reflect the author’s own cognitive framework, potentially making it skewed toward a specific way of thinking. If such a test is used, individuals who score highly may be seen as having similar mental characteristics or limitations, which could simply be a result of the test’s narrow perspective.
In this case, the high scores would no longer represent general intelligence or cognitive flexibility, but rather a shared bias or limitation that the test fails to account for. This would be problematic, as it would reinforce the cognitive limitations of both the author and the test-takers, rather than providing a comprehensive measure of intelligence.
For a test to be valid and accurate, it must be free from these personal biases, ensuring it measures general intelligence, not a particular mindset or cognitive limitation.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests rather than–let’s call them–“static” tests consisting of a single item or set of items presented as a whole test, unchanging, instead of a collection of algorithmically variant or shifting items adapting to prior testee answers in a computer interface?
Liljegren: I believe the most effective dynamic test would be a virtual world where time is infinite, and the participant cannot escape until they have successfully solved the test. In this environment, the test taker’s intelligence would be measured based on the choices they make and the paths they explore as they interact with the world around them.
The absence of time pressure is crucial. Just like in real life, there’s no strict timeline for decision-making, and rushing would only limit the depth of exploration. Early choices might lead the participant down a seemingly wrong path, but without a time limit, they would have the opportunity to revisit earlier decisions, re-evaluate their choices, and learn from their mistakes. This reflects the process of growing through experience and finding the best path through reflection and exploration.
The world would be locked, meaning the participant cannot escape or finish the test until they have solved it in their own way. This would ensure that the participant is fully engaged and has the space to explore every facet of the test, allowing for a deeper understanding of their own problem-solving process and decision-making abilities. The test is not a race—it is a journey where intelligence is reflected in adaptation, learning, and growth over time.
By removing time constraints and providing an infinite amount of space to explore, this dynamic test would truly measure the ability to think critically, adapt to new information, and learn from past choices. The best answers would come not from rushing but from the thoughtful, reflective process of solving problems over time in an ever-evolving environment.
Jacobsen: How do you remove or minimize test constructor bias from tests?
Liljegren: I believe that to minimize bias in test construction, the author needs to possess a high level of general intelligence. The higher the intelligence, the broader and more flexible the thinking, which helps in considering multiple perspectives and reducing narrow-minded bias. Lower intelligence tends to create more biased and limited thinking, which may not resonate with a diverse range of test-takers.
Moreover, the test constructor needs to have a well-rounded understanding of human behavior. A test creator with greater intelligence is more likely to recognize these biases and account for them, ensuring that the test is fair and representative of a wider audience.
Jacobsen: How do we know with confidence many listed norms are, in fact, reasonably accurate on many of these tests? What is the range of sample sizes on the tests, even approximately, now? Practically speaking, for good statistics, what is your ideal number of test-takers? You can’t say, “8,128,000,000.”
Liljegren: I believe the sample size for a test should consist only of individuals who take it 100% seriously. When test-takers are fully engaged and committed, the data collected will be far more accurate and reliable. This ensures that the results reflect the true cognitive abilities of the participants, rather than being skewed by rushed or careless answers.
While a larger sample size can be beneficial for diversity and generalization, the quality of the responses is paramount. A smaller, but more focused group of serious participants will yield more valid and meaningful norms. In essence, the test becomes much more accurate when the sample is composed of individuals who approach it with the same level of seriousness and dedication as athletes competing for a gold medal.
In my opinion, a sample size of around 100 highly engaged participants is ideal for creating accurate and reliable test norms. When the group is larger, such as 500 participants, the level of seriousness tends to decrease, especially for those who find themselves near the bottom of the results. As a result, these individuals may rush through the test or fail to fully engage, which can lead to less reliable data.
In contrast, when the sample size is smaller, like 100 participants, the competition feels more real and the stakes are higher. This creates an environment where test-takers are more likely to commit fully to the process and give their best effort. The focus and dedication of such a group result in more meaningful and precise data, as each participant is genuinely invested in the outcome, much like athletes competing for a gold medal. By keeping the sample size smaller and more engaged, the test is able to capture more accurate measures of intelligence and cognitive ability.
Jacobsen: Is English-based bias a prominent problem throughout tests? Could this be limiting the global spread of possible test-takers of these tests rather than limiting them to particular language spheres? Although, these tests are taken, to a limited degree, in many countries of the world in all/most regions of the world.
Liljegren: I avoid English-based bias in my tests by incorporating numbers and images, which are universal elements that don’t rely on language. This approach ensures that both English and non-English speakers have a fair chance to perform based on their cognitive abilities, rather than language proficiency. While English language knowledge can be an advantage for native speakers, non-native speakers might actually have an advantage in some cases. When they encounter unfamiliar words, they are more likely to look them up, which could reveal subtle clues that a native speaker might overlook, assuming they already know the meaning.
Overall, this approach balances things out and ensures fairness for both groups. By relying on numbers and images, I make sure that the test evaluates true cognitive skills, regardless of the language spoken. This way, the test becomes more universally accessible while still maintaining its reliability across different populations.
Jacobsen: When trying to develop questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability, what is important for verbal, numeral, spatial, logical (and other) types of questions?
Liljegren: I believe that in designing questions that tap into deeper cognitive abilities, it is crucial to integrate different domains—verbal, numerical, spatial, and logical—into a cohesive, interconnected framework. Rather than treating each domain as separate, questions should challenge test-takers to blend these different types of reasoning, creating a more holistic and real-world relevant measure of intelligence.
In traditional tests, we often see sections devoted solely to one type of reasoning: a verbal section, a numerical section, a spatial section, etc. However, true cognitive ability is more complex. It lies in how well someone can synthesize and apply knowledge across these domains to form a broader, unified understanding. This is akin to solving a puzzle where the pieces are of different shapes and forms—verbal, numerical, spatial, and logical. The challenge comes not from solving each piece individually but from recognizing how they interconnect and contribute to the whole.
This integrated approach mirrors real-world problem-solving, where we constantly draw upon diverse areas of knowledge. To test someone’s true cognitive abilities, we must create challenges that require them to blend these elements and think beyond linear, compartmentalized patterns. It’s about understanding the bigger picture and making connections that others might miss, which is often the hallmark of high-level cognitive processing.
In this way, the test becomes more than just a measure of isolated skills. It gauges how well someone can think creatively and flexibly, applying various types of reasoning in novel ways to solve complex problems. This method of testing challenges individuals to think out of the box, drawing on multiple domains to find the best possible solution—a far more comprehensive reflection of intelligence than traditional, domain-specific tests.
Jacobsen: What are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these tests? So, they get artificially low scores on high-range tests.
Liljegren: Many test-takers often fall into the trap of underestimating the time commitment required for high-range tests. They tend to think that they should be able to answer the questions quickly, driven by a sense of confidence or even narcissism. These individuals often assume that their initial answer is correct without fully considering alternative perspectives or exploring the problem deeply. This overconfidence typically leads them to rush through the test, which results in lower scores.
The key to performing well on such tests lies in approaching them with humility. When a person is humble enough to accept that they don’t have all the answers and that there could be multiple ways of thinking about a problem, they tend to spend more time reflecting on each question. Rather than sticking rigidly to their first choice, they’re open to exploring different avenues and rethinking their responses. This deeper, more methodical approach leads to better performance, as it allows them to tap into a broader range of insights and avoid missing crucial clues that could improve their answers.
So, in essence, those who approach a high-range test with an open mind and a willingness to consider all possibilities—without rushing or prematurely settling on answers—are far more likely to succeed.
Jacobsen: What is the intended age-range for high-range tests? How do these account for individuals younger and older than this range?
Liljegren: I believe that the intended age range for high-range tests often reflects the cognitive and emotional maturity required to fully engage with them. Younger individuals tend to rush through questions and make quick decisions, often due to a lack of experience or an overestimation of their ability to answer immediately. As people grow older, they gain a sense of relaxation and wisdom that allows them to approach problems more thoughtfully. This maturation process helps individuals realize they don’t have all the answers right away, which leads them to spend more time considering different perspectives and refining their responses.
When I was younger, I would only spend a couple of hours on each test, but now, after years of experience, I dedicate thousands of hours to fully exploring every test I take. This shift in approach illustrates how cognitive growth and emotional development over time lead to better results on high-range tests.
Jacobsen: What is important in constructing and norming a test?
Liljegren: When constructing and norming a test, one crucial factor that is often overlooked is the cognitive growth that occurs during the testing process. A test that promotes cognitive development as the participant moves through it is not only more engaging but also yields more accurate results. This dynamic approach ensures that the test-taker’s cognitive ability is allowed to evolve, which, in turn, enhances the reliability of the results.
Cognitive Growth During the Test: One of the most important elements in test construction is ensuring that the test encourages growth in cognitive ability while the participant is engaging with it. This process involves crafting questions that require test-takers to think critically, adapt their strategies, and explore new methods of problem-solving as they progress through the test. By introducing progressively more challenging and thought-provoking questions, the test encourages test-takers to evolve their thinking, enhancing their problem-solving ability and, in turn, their cognitive growth.
This improvement is especially important because it directly influences engagement. When a test-taker sees their cognitive abilities growing during the test—when they feel that they are not just answering questions but also becoming more intelligent throughout the process—they are far more likely to invest the necessary time and focus to fully engage with the test. This increased focus and effort can lead to a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of their potential, as they are operating at their maximum cognitive capacity.
Engagement and Accuracy: As a test-taker becomes more engaged in the process and experiences cognitive growth, they are more likely to take the time to consider their answers carefully and explore multiple perspectives before finalizing them. This is where the real value of cognitive growth comes into play: when participants are learning and improving as they work through the test, their final answers are more reflective of their true cognitive ability. They are less likely to rush through questions, make careless errors, or settle on superficial solutions.
In contrast, tests that are too short, or lack this cognitive growth element, may encourage rushed decision-making, ultimately leading to less accurate results. In such cases, the test may not fully capture the test-taker’s potential, and the results could be skewed by the lack of cognitive engagement. Therefore, a test should not only measure raw ability but also stimulate growth throughout its duration. By doing so, test-takers’ cognitive abilities are fully exercised and measured at their peak.
The Importance of Test Length: For this process to take place, the test needs to be long enough to allow for meaningful cognitive growth. If the test is too short, test-takers will not have sufficient time to experience this transformation. As the test progresses, their problem-solving skills improve, which should be reflected in their answers as they revisit and reconsider earlier questions. This iterative process ensures that their final performance represents a more accurate picture of their cognitive abilities.
By fostering cognitive growth during the test, you are not simply assessing the static intelligence of the participant; you are capturing the dynamic nature of their cognitive abilities. This allows for a much more nuanced and accurate understanding of their intelligence, which is crucial when norming the test. This approach can lead to more meaningful norms, as test-takers are measured based on their full cognitive potential, not just their initial capacity.
In summary, test construction and norming should go beyond merely measuring cognitive ability at a fixed point in time. By designing tests that promote cognitive growth, you engage test-takers in a deeper and more meaningful way, which not only improves their performance but also leads to more accurate, reliable, and comprehensive results. This dynamic approach is essential for creating a test that truly measures the depth and breadth of human intelligence.
Jacobsen: Cheaters exist. Frauds exist. How do you a) deal with frauds and cheaters on tests and b) prevent fraud and cheating on those tests?
Liljegren: I believe that the key to preventing cheating on IQ tests lies in making the test engaging and enjoyable. People tend to cheat when they find the test boring, as they simply want to finish it as quickly as possible, similar to how one might skip through a dull movie. However, if the test is fun and feels like a rewarding journey, participants are far less likely to rush through or cheat.
When the test is designed in such a way that it encourages deep thought, curiosity, and cognitive growth, test-takers are naturally more invested in the process. This engagement reduces the temptation to take shortcuts, as participants are more interested in exploring and solving the problems presented. By making the experience fun and stimulating, you not only prevent cheating but also improve the quality of the data collected.
In essence, if the IQ test becomes an enjoyable challenge, much like a game or an intellectual journey, participants are far less likely to cheat and more likely to put forth their best effort. This approach ensures that the results reflect their true cognitive abilities, rather than rushed or dishonest attempts to finish quickly.
Jacobsen: What is an efficient means by which to ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test?
Liljegren: To efficiently estimate the general factor loading of a high-range test, the test should incorporate a variety of question types that tap into multiple forms of intelligence and cognitive processes. This ensures the test measures a broad spectrum of abilities, including verbal, numerical, spatial, logical, creative, and abstract thinking. Using only one style of questions—such as rows of text or numbers—limits the scope of intelligence being tested, and can lead to a narrow, predictable response pattern.
Additionally, relying on the same question types repeatedly can result in a learning effect, where test-takers begin to predict the types of questions and answers. This skews the test’s validity, as the test-taker’s experience may be based more on familiarity with the format rather than actual cognitive ability. Therefore, introducing a diverse range of question formats prevents this issue, ensuring that the test captures a fuller, more accurate measure of the general factor of intelligence.
Jacobsen: What is the most precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test, a superset of tests, or a subset of such a superset?
Liljegren: The most comprehensive and precise method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test is by employing a superset approach, which integrates a variety of subsets. The superset allows for a more holistic view of intelligence by encompassing a diverse array of cognitive abilities, such as numerical, verbal, spatial, and logical reasoning. This broad scope provides a more accurate measurement of general intelligence (g) because it evaluates a wide range of cognitive processes that overlap and interact.
By using a superset, the test becomes dynamic, capturing the interconnections between different cognitive domains. Knowledge from one subset can inform and enhance performance in another, allowing you to form a fuller, more nuanced understanding of a person’s intellectual capacity. This approach not only reduces bias but also prevents the predictability of answers that can arise when a test is too narrowly focused.
Moreover, a superset allows for greater accuracy and robustness in general factor loading by avoiding the limitations of focusing on a single type of reasoning. By examining multiple subsets together, you provide a more comprehensive measure of cognitive ability, reflecting the complex interplay of various intellectual skills.
In summary, a superset ensures that you’re capturing the full range of human intelligence, minimizing the biases associated with narrowly focused tests, and providing a more complete and dynamic assessment of general cognitive ability.
Jacobsen: What seem like the most appropriate places for people to start when taking your tests–taking into account their own skill sets, or others’ tests for that matter?
Liljegren: My tests are designed to be accessible even to individuals with no prior exposure to IQ testing. The key idea is that as the test-taker progresses, their IQ naturally increases through the process. Each part of the test is interconnected, offering clues within the test itself to help guide them toward solving other sections. Rather than presenting isolated questions, the test is structured as a unified experience where everything fits together, fostering both growth and understanding as they move forward. This approach ensures that the process of taking the test is not only a challenge but also a journey of discovery.
The journey through the entire test is genuinely fun and rewarding. With each question solved, there’s a sense of accomplishment and often laughter, which keeps you engaged and eager to continue. The satisfaction of cracking a question creates a sense of excitement, motivating the test-taker to push forward until they’ve solved it all. The tests are created with the intention of helping people increase their intelligence, not simply taking their money by leading them to believe they are correct when they aren’t. This journey isn’t just about testing; it’s about expanding cognitive abilities in an enjoyable, engaging, and fulfilling way.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Liljegren: I believe that many tests I’ve encountered are designed not with the intention of fostering genuine intellectual growth, but rather to exploit the test-taker’s desire for validation and to profit from their repeated attempts. These tests often provide immediate validation to make the participant feel correct, only to later disappoint them, leading to the common practice of encouraging a second (and often third) attempt to “fix” their results. This cycle is not about true intelligence testing but about encouraging further payments by exploiting a psychological pattern: the desire to prove oneself right and gain recognition from peers.
This type of testing is harmful because it focuses on validation rather than education. It relies on participants’ egos, motivating them to pay again to prove they’re capable, rather than helping them grow. This creates a cycle where the person is encouraged to rush through the test for validation, only to feel let down and encouraged to submit another payment for another attempt.
In contrast, my tests are designed to be engaging, fun, and intellectually rewarding, with the goal of fostering actual cognitive growth. The experience is meant to be so enjoyable and fulfilling that test-takers don’t want to stop. The aim is to encourage them to fully immerse themselves in the test, where they are learning, exploring, and growing their IQ as they progress. The focus is not on tricking participants or manipulating them for financial gain but on offering a genuine opportunity to develop and discover new intellectual perspectives.
A good test should be an experience that challenges and encourages cognitive growth, one that leaves the test-taker with a sense of accomplishment and a desire to keep going. It’s about helping them learn, not about creating a system where they’re trapped in a cycle of disappointment and further payments.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from making these tests and their variants?
Liljegren: I spent three years on two different tests, working on them simultaneously and dedicating 2000 hours to each. When I submitted them at the same time, something very interesting happened: I scored my all-time high on one test, but my all-time low on the other. This experience highlighted just how unpredictable and subjective these tests can be.
Even with extensive preparation and effort, the outcome is not guaranteed. The tests are designed in such a way that, despite the time and focus invested, the results can vary dramatically depending on various factors—many of which are beyond your control. This unpredictability demonstrates that intelligence is not solely about raw effort or preparation; it also involves a complex interaction of factors, including problem-solving approach, adaptability, and the ability to navigate unexpected challenges.
Ultimately, this reinforces the notion that high-range tests are inherently unpredictable, and the experience of taking them can vary significantly from one instance to another, regardless of how much effort is put into preparation.
Some authors’ tests feature repeated questions across multiple test versions, likely due to a combination of laziness and a desire to maximize profits. By identifying these repeated questions, I was able to deduce the correct answers through second attempts, as well as spot consistent errors in the scoring of the tests I took. These errors included misspellings of my name, incorrect dates, and discrepancies in my raw scores. The recurrence of these mistakes suggests that many authors are sloppy in scoring, and I must take this into account when submitting my tests.
In such cases, I realized I need to factor in the author’s state of mind during the scoring process. The outcome can vary depending on the author’s circumstances—whether they are distracted, tired, or experiencing stress. To minimize errors, I must plan the timing of my submissions carefully, choosing moments when I anticipate the test author is most likely to score the tests accurately. For mail-based submissions, I also have to consider potential delays or disruptions, such as holidays or issues like mail theft or vandalism, that could impact the delivery or processing of my test. These external factors, which are beyond my control, require careful planning and preparation to ensure the best possible conditions for submitting my tests.
The realization that so many aspects of the process are influenced by factors out of my control has shaped my approach to testing. While it’s frustrating, it also underscores the need to approach the testing process with patience, awareness, and strategic thinking to navigate these challenges effectively.
When creating my own tests, my primary goal is always to foster cognitive growth rather than to make quick profits. Too often, the rush to monetize IQ testing leads to burnout among authors, which in turn results in sloppy test scoring and a lack of care in the process. This is something I’m very conscious of, and I make it a point to thoroughly double-check and verify everything I do. Each test I score is done with the utmost care, knowing that inaccurate results can have lasting consequences on someone’s life.
I understand how a poorly scored test can affect a person, particularly when they are already facing difficulties. A mistake on a test could contribute to feelings of inadequacy or frustration, or even worse, lead to a deeper sense of alienation. I am very mindful of this, and it’s why I dedicate hours to ensuring the accuracy of each test I score. I want the experience of taking my tests to be constructive, encouraging, and enlightening for the test-taker, and to give them an opportunity to truly grow their intelligence.
Moreover, I believe that creating tests with integrity, where the scoring is accurate and fair, has a far-reaching positive impact on individuals. People should leave my tests feeling not only more knowledgeable but also more confident in their abilities, as opposed to feeling confused or disheartened by an inaccurate result.
Ultimately, the goal is always to provide an environment where learning is rewarding and enjoyable. This is why I am so meticulous about every detail in the process, ensuring the test is as much a tool for personal growth as it is an intellectual challenge.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Patrick, and thank you additionally for your patience and forgiveness in my delays.
Liljegren: You’re very welcome! I’m glad I could assist, and I truly appreciate your thoughtful words. If you ever need more help or have further questions in the future, don’t hesitate to reach out. Best of luck with your endeavors, and I hope everything goes smoothly from here on out!
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). ‘On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-25.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-25.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-25.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 25: Patrick Liljegren’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-25.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “On High-Range Test Construction 24: Patrick Liljegren.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-25.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Alex Tolio is someone interested in I.Q. tests and high-range test construction. He discussed common errors in creating valid, reliable high-range IQ tests, highlighting test constructors’ biases, insufficient abstraction, and questions overly reliant on novelty or complexity. Tolio notes that a balance between creativity and clarity is essential to prevent ambiguous items. He suggests beta-testing, revision, and removing unnecessary elements to reduce bias. He advocates for heterogeneous tests to best capture the general intelligence factor (g) and highlights the importance of correlating new tests with validated ones. Confirmatory factor analysis and careful data preparation are key for precise measurement. Feedback issues often involve claims of ambiguous items.
Keywords: bias in test creation, abstraction importance, heterogeneous tests, test validity, construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis, reducing ambiguity.
On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust?
Alex Tolio: I suppose the most common mistake may be one’s own biases towards what they consider valid.
While there exists objectivity in what parameters constitute a good test, there does not seem to be a set consensus on what really is “absolutely needed” to measure IQ’s supposedly above 3-4SD.
I can only suppose with certainty that the need for increased abstraction (rather than speed) has to be present, but there exists a fine line between what is really abstract or simply convoluted.
Because of this, test-creators (including myself), are likely implementing their own bias within the question(s) themselves, which ultimately may reflect one’s own attitude to measuring very high IQ. In other words, what one considers great items or perhaps even format, is already biased.
I believe this can manifest itself in many forms; such as:
A tendency towards creating items that may be inherently polluted or prone to by external factors; examples of such may be unnecessary layers in hopes of increasing difficulty, which, when made poorly may falsely promote novelty in cost of quality. I believe the main flaw of such items may be that a conscientious but yet less capable individual; may be able to untangle them given enough time. This means that the difficulty of the item in question is shallow; given it may be sufficiently understood with enough time, it is only a mere product of the layers of which the true solution may be.
Implementation of too much creativity, I’ve found this may be counter-intuitive to creating a solid test, but I believe there need be a balance. In the process of one’s own journey to create novelty, one will be faced with such issue, where a large risk is esotericism, which may ultimately bring its own set of problems. Such items are also prone to interpretation, which ultimately hurts a test’s quality, because the reliability is primarily based on responses given by the candidates that answered an item. Because reliability is a product of this, such questions will dramatically lower the consistency, because of the variety of the responses received. I believe there are numerous tests out there of which this is an issue; and possibly a reason of the lack of report for such statistic.
To note, a test may be good in of itself, but the sample to which it is administered will have a direct effect on its quality.
Misjudge of sufficiently discriminating questions may result a test author to produce a test that is too difficult.
Some test authors are not attempting to create tests to measure IQ, but is rather a showcase of their own ability, in which superfluous and unreasonably difficult items are present.
Recycling one’s own questions (something I’m equally guilty of)!
Poor balance of difficulty within a test; or too “graded” difficulty. If difficulty is too calculated, or a steep sudden increase occurs, there may exist a common “wall” that collapses in a certain raw; of which people of a ball-park of ability may fall into, possibly seizing to discriminate further.
A good example of that is when a norm has a jump of almost +10-15 points per raw; this means that the people who are in this raw are not distributed.
Creating too many difficult questions, does not make for a great test as a whole.
Possibly the repetitive use of patterns, of which one has seen, thought of, or previously used in tests. This creates a author-specific learning effect, of which familiarity with such pattern(s), assuming they have been solved once, will not require sufficient amount of ability afterwards.
I believe this is also a mistake I tend to make. However, I believe it is ultimately unavoidable as one proceeds to solve an author(s) tests. One will have to exert the most effort in the first couple tests, of which may truly measure “IQ”. But as one proceeds to take multiple tests by an author, their scores are prone to increase. I truly think this reflects that tests may seize to be robust in particular cases; this seems to be irrespective of whether author’s work is of quality, but may be related to becoming more aware of what may be asked by a certain author; developing an intuition for such; or perhaps an eventual reverse-engineer on how the author may tend to think, and general familiarity. This, for me, highlights the human error that is present in such tests, which constitutes imperfect measurement; but also possibly invalid after a certain period of time.
Test questions do not discriminate properly, as-per-flawed construction. This ties well with shallow questions. I believe questions that poorly discriminate are likely the ones that are also prone to be more polluted by (external) factors required; that is in addition to pattern recognition (core).
Whereas those factors may ultimately eliminate the quality and need (albeit not absolute) for pattern recognition.
Items that are poor may result in an “artificial ceiling” of which the test does not bare the ability to truly measure to the levels it is reporting.
False or manipulated statistics (or lack thereof)
Jacobsen: What are the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence or as one attempts to measure in the high-range of ability?
Tolio: I believe what is unitary of such tests is their increased demand on abstraction.
This means that the focus is shifted to the depth rather than speed, of which may challenge the strength of ones understanding.
Because understanding requires pattern recognition as per item, candidates answer directly reflects their understanding of an item.
Assuming answer is commonly unique, then the discrimination should occur naturally; a phenomenon better seen by the (likely) common understanding of items between candidates of different ability levels.
This does not necessarily imply there truly is an alternative (or weaker answer), but is a consequence of lack of sufficient understanding, of which ambiguity may seem apparent.
However, it is also possible there does exist a weaker “common”, of which ideally should be eliminated.
The strictness of the answer is perhaps also a prerequisite, of which candidates of higher ability tend to be extremely rigorous, and may not rush to think they have “the” answer.
In short, the core abilities are depth of understanding (reason), pattern recognition, higher ability for abstraction, and often inherent divergence that may result.
Pattern recognition of the highest form, in my opinion, is not about recognizing a pattern in all the chaos (or noise), but proposing structure to it; such that it is sufficiently and simply understood.
This means unnecessary elements implemented in questions may contradict this notion, and presentation ought to be clean.
If an element does not bare meaning, or is not useful in any particular way, is probably best removed. Which may also reduce item likelihood to load on external polluting factors.
Jacobsen: How do you remove or minimize test constructor bias from tests?
Tolio: It is not possible in its absolute form, but certain measures may help to eliminate it.
-Questions should (ideally) be beta-tested before release.
-Conscious effort of elimination by author, rigorous revision of items.
-Creating questions that are more pure; so that cultural difference is minimized
-Exclusion of esotericism and the inherent creativity
-Removal of unnecessary elements, promoting a clean presentation of an item
-Too many clues may be as good as none
-Very careful implementation of novelty, and preferring a more universally understood form of expression.
-Eliminating the projection of one’s own subjective ideas of sufficient discrimination between higher-ability candidates;
Jacobsen: What should be done with homogeneous and heterogeneous tests?
Tolio: Despite my own construction of homogeneous tests, it is clear that heterogeneous tests are the best measure.
It is not possible to extract true g if the test is homogeneous, and is likely extracting the most “general” factor the test is loading on.
I believe heterogeneous tests are the only way to extract g, because it is also simply a manifestation of a unitary excellence in various cognitive facets;
I’ve come to the recent conclusion that it is best that a test’s ceiling should be raised by this variety, rather than the implementation of extremely difficult questions in one area.
The latter being flawed, as these questions are the most challenging to make “healthy”.
Cooijmans tests are a great model, but I would also encourage possible “inventions” for authors. Such forms may be of the problems or task in question.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Tolio: P. Cooijmans has the most thorough and professional work, which could additionally be used for educative purposes.
Jouve has professional work; and implements a rather linear approach. Rather accurate; however I believe it could be potentially limiting after an arbitrary threshold.
And for this I think Johnathan Wai is a better fit.
Johnathan Wai’s work is more of well-suit to the high range.
I am not very well acquainted with old generation of authors, or non-western.
Prousalis work is promising.
There are other authors of which I like, but may lack substantial statistics.
Jacobsen: When trying to develop questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability, what is important for verbal, numeral, spatial, logical (and other) types of questions?
Tolio: While overlaps with the previous, however I will add:
Question difficulty may be effectively raised by:
Careful implementation of additional rules and the complexity of them; (reason)
Increasing the abstraction level of the idea in question; (horizon)
These seem to be primary ways, but not necessarily only ways.
In the process of a candidate tackling an item, one must first generate a plethora of ideas of whom (most, may not be meaningful) in solving the item.
However; the discrimination of such items occurs as per their idea, and not necessarily that they are difficult to work-around (reason).
It is likely that if one is not capable, they will never generate the idea to solve the item in question, of which requires associative horizon (see P. Cooijmans).
The most important part of every item is whether discrimination occurs; while it may seem intuitive that an author should be very rigorous with their own idea(s) and logic, or to even the disambiguation of their own items; this perfection is not always necessary in the process of creating a good item.
I’ve come to observe that an author mainly needs to think of the best application of their idea, in combination to the best presentation of such; of which, if made correctly,
should naturally dis-encourage alternative solutions from being present. In other words, disambiguation may occur as a consequence of this.
Jacobsen: What is efficient means by which to ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test?
Tolio: I suppose since ballpark is used:
Correlation of authors test to a test or test(s) known to have captured g.
This means that correlations with professional tests are absolutely necessary, because they indicate construct validity.
Jacobsen: What is the most precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test, a superset of tests, or a subset of such a superset?
Tolio: The most precise method I believe would be confirmatory factor analysis, of which samples are usually not apt.
This means it may misrepresent a test’s true g loading, and this is not necessarily towards the “better”, but often contrary, however it can be both ways.
It is also very likely that the extracted factor is not true g, of which a test may have extracted A “general factor”.
Correlations help to ensure of this.
When omega η is estimated, the square root of omega η is thought to be the g loading.
Data may need be prepared very carefully, but meaningful factor analysis may be least possible with a clean sample of N=70-100, albeit not precise.
Intercorrelation between tests, or one’s own tests, may be flawed because of the assumption the tests have captured g; unless correlations previously made have indicated construct validity, of which this method may be then considered valid.
Jacobsen: Have test construction and norming processes evolved in the aggregate for you?
Tolio: It started as a creative outlet and hobby for me; and I believe such lack of seriousness may be vaguely reflected, however, I attempt to provide honest statistical work/methods. It has been (and still is) a learning curve for me, of which I’ve tried to educate myself from the variety of work provided by authors, particularly P. Cooijmans, and using it as a stepping-stone to my own conclusion(s). There is still a lot to learn, in fact I would claim that I’m not even remotely advanced with statistics.
So I may use a disclaimer in the case something said is of ignorance; P. Cooijmans norming method is the definite best for norming a high-range test. Because of the linear issue proposed by Z-scores.
I have tried to propose at the very least my own, of which seems to have began with a flawed premise.
I proposed that many high range IQ tests do not contain sufficiently discriminating items; such promoting an essentially “artificial ceiling”.
This means that the items may not scale further upon a certain level, and are likely reporting false IQ scores beyond that.
I thought of attaching a “grade” or an IQ level for each problem, of which may be estimated by its solvability, of which is tied to the reported IQ of candidates that solved this item,
of which try to extract the least “known” IQ possible to solve a question, thus attaching this grade to the question.
The reason of this, would be to ball-park the true IQ content/difficulty present within a test.
This would help with promoting a healthier ceiling, or at the least; estimating true discrimination of a test.
Some but not all flaws:
The flawed premise is that a question absolutely necessarily needs a minimum IQ, this assumes that every question is good.
And of course; the dishonest reports of IQ’s, or scores.
Jacobsen: What is the most common mistake people make when submitting feedback about your tests?
Tolio: I’ve received primarily positive feedback, however there are often cases of which candidates attempt to point out a supposedly ambiguous item.
To eliminate this issue, whilst being entirely aware of the feedback this gives; I report every single “incorrect” answer to items.
I hope this approach is transparent enough, so that there should be no further discussions.
I’m fully aware however that such approach (and availability of tests), is promoting further familiarity/practice.
I hope to tackle this issue by creating more novel items.
However, it has also served as an experiment for me, and thus far it does not seem to be of extreme benefit to candidates.
This means that thus far; despite reporting the incorrect answers, the correct answers are still not “correctly” found, by re-occuring candidates in case an item may have been re-used.
This does not necessarily prove the contrary about the approach, but it may be of lesser impact as initially thought of.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). ‘On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-24.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-24.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Tolio’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-24.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “On High-Range Test Construction 24: Alex Folio.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-24.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
The Texas anti-abortion law signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott prohibits abortions once a ‘fetal heartbeat’ is detected, typically around six weeks, with no exceptions for rape or incest and limited allowances for medical emergencies threatening the mother’s life. Enforcement is privatized, enabling private citizens to sue those aiding or performing abortions, potentially earning a $10,000 reward, creating a system akin to vigilante justice. Critics, including Dr. Sara Imershein, note the misleading use of “heartbeat,” as a six-week embryo lacks a developed heart. This law disproportionately impacts marginalized, low-income women and limits healthcare providers’ capacity to prioritize women’s health effectively.
Keywords: fetal heartbeat, marginalized women, medical exceptions, private enforcement, Texas anti-abortion law, vigilante justice, women’s health risk.
Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights
Texas Republican Greg Abbott, when signing the Texas Law, said:
Our creator endowed us with the right to life, and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year. because of abortion. In Texas, we work to save those lives.
The Texas Health & Safety Code (171.201–171.212), which has been in effect since September 2021, prohibits abortions once the ‘foetal heartbeat’ is detected, except in emergency situations, excluding pregnancies due to rape and incest.
The emergency situations are limited to “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed” (§171.002).
Unlike other states, which allow individuals to sue state officials for enforcing an unconstitutional law because these laws directly challenged the federal protection under Roe v. Wade, in Texas the drafters utilize different framing of privatization of enforcement.
As a result, judicial review can be shunned and state officials are shielded from being sued for violating the constitution, which significantly makes the law difficult to challenge.
The core idea of the Act is that whenever the fetus heartbeat can be detected, it should be considered a person and afforded rights and protections. The sentiment of defining the moral status of a fetus is based on the heartbeat itself, reflected by the code of §171.202.
However, the use of the heartbeat as the moral status of a fetus, so it deserves to be protected, is misleading, as noted by Jennifer Gunter, a well-known gynecologist and obstetrician in Canada and United State:
“An embryo does not have a heart—at least, not what we understand a human heart to be, with pumping tubes and ventricles. At six weeks, a human embryo throbs, but those tissues have not yet formed an organ, so the pulsing should not be confused with a heartbeat.”
The absurdity of the new Texas abortion law when it gives private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against any person, rather than the enforcement by the State. The person eventually will be awarded a minimum of $10,000. In other words, it allows strangers to spy on women and reflects vigilante justice.
Even though the women who seek abortion cannot be sued, it widens the criminal acts towards who “performs or induces an abortion” or any person who “aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” once a fetal heartbeat is detected (§171.208).
This new law being enforced is not only an attack on women’s human rights; it is also a barrier for women to get access to evidence-based intervention. Such circumstances exacerbate undesirable impacts on marginalized communities—Black, Hispanic, and other women with low-income socioeconomic.
The level of ambiguity it imposes puts women’s health at risk and compromises the health professional’s ability to act in the best interests of the woman. This anti-abortion law ought to be quashed.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Sapie, A. (2024, November 22). ‘Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): SAPIE, A. Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Sapie, A. 2024. “Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/akbar-sapie.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Sapie, A. “Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/akbar-sapie.
Harvard: Sapie, A. (2024) ‘Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/akbar-sapie.
Harvard (Australian): Sapie, A 2024, ‘Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/akbar-sapie.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Sapie, Akbar. “Abortion law in Texas is an attack on human rights.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/akbar-sapie.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Hindemburg Melão Jr. is the author of solutions to scientific and mathematical problems that have remained unsolved for decades or centuries, including improvements on works by 5 Nobel laureates, holder of a world record in longest announced checkmate in blindfold simultaneous chess games, registered in the Guinness Book 1998, author of the Sigma Test Extended and founder of some high IQ societies. Melão Jr. discussed the limitations of traditional IQ measurement methods, which use an ordinal scale that restricts statistical operations and distorts high-level scores. He introduced a method in 2003 to place IQ scores on a ratio scale, termed potential IQ (pIQ), providing consistent intervals and accurate proportional comparisons. This approach aimed to correct distortions in traditional methods like Wechsler’s, which impose a constant standard deviation. The updated method in 2024 involved revising norms for IQ tests like the Mega and Titan, aiming for more precise high-range assessments. The concept allows for enhanced analysis and accurate determination of rarity levels.
Keywords: High-range assessments, IQ measurement, potential IQ (pIQ), rarity levels, ratio scale, statistical analysis, Wechsler method.
On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing
In Measure Theory, there are 4 scales with different levels of information: categorical, ordinal, interval, and ratio. The scores in IQ tests, as they are currently measured, are on an ordinal scale. This imposes many limitations regarding the statistical treatments that can be applied to these results. One can only determine whether an IQ score is higher or lower than another, but it is not possible to accurately determine differences, proportions, or perform any arithmetic operations between the scores. The Celsius temperature scale, for example, is approximately on an interval scale, allowing for the measurement of temperature differences, but it does not allow for the calculation of proportions. The Kelvin scale is on a ratio scale, enabling the calculation of differences, proportions, and all other arithmetic operations.
For this reason, for decades, the creation of a method to measure IQ on a ratio scale has been the “Holy Grail” of Psychometrics, as it would solve a wide range of distortions in test scores, contribute to the improvement of reliability and accuracy of the results, eliminate some inconsistencies, and confer greater scientific status to the concept of “IQ.”
My article is in Portuguese, and the only source in which it was published is the Sigma Society website, so it did not gain traction, and thus, less efficient methods continue to be used in the standardization and normalization process of tests.
With the reactivation of Sigma Society in 2022, I considered revising and updating the 2003 article, but I later preferred to write a different article, describing the method in slightly more appropriate language while preserving the original idea. Recently (July 2024), I was interviewed by Scott Jacobson in the In-Sight Journal about test construction, and he suggested including the 2003 article as part of the interview. Therefore, I decided to create a new update, especially in the parameter values. We tried to obtain the raw data from the Mega Test and Titan Test, with Ronald Hoeflin, to also update the norms for these tests that we had calculated in 2003, but Hoeflin has been more distant from the Internet and has not yet responded. Thus, we made this update now, and if we receive the complete raw data in the future, we may create a new norm for Mega and Titan.
This standardization process has important advantages compared to previous methods, generating more accurate scores, even from smaller samples, and enabling a wide range of analyses that were not possible with the existing methods until then. An example: if it were possible to sum the intelligence of all the people who have ever been born into a single person, what would that person’s IQ be? Or: considering all the people who work at Google, what would the institutional IQ of this company be, that is, the level of intellectual production of Google would be equivalent to the IQ of a person at what level? With the normalization method used in the Sigma Test starting in 2003, it becomes possible to answer this question and many others involving proportions between IQs and more sophisticated operations. Another question that can now be answered by this method is: “What is the probability that a person with an IQ of 150 would solve a question that 50% of people with an IQ of 120 would get right?” Of course, this also works for any other values instead of 150, 120, and 50%. The answer was possible for a particular test, but with this standardization method, it can be answered for any problem.
To read the original 2003 article, visit the link mentioned above. In the original text, there are some errors and positions that no longer reflect my current opinion on this subject, but, in essence, the central idea described in that text retains its validity practically intact.
In this current article, I will make some minor revisions to certain details of the original text and will attempt to present the concepts of pIQ and rIQ more clearly and didactically. Next, I will comment on some of the main home tests, what they actually measure, what the differences are between their real ceilings and nominal ceilings, and, most importantly, what the true level of rarity is for each IQ range above 130, especially at the highest levels.
If you believe that a person with a score of 196 on a standardized IQ test with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 is truly at a rarity level of 1 in 1 billion, you will probably revise your opinion after reading this article. If you do not believe this but would not know how to evaluate what the correct rarity level for that IQ range would be, you will find suitable answers in this article. Certainly, the results presented here are neither conclusive nor exact, but they provide a more realistic and factually grounded view, with a higher probability of being close to the “truth,” or at least the “truth” from the perspective of sentient reality.
First, we will define “rarity IQ,” “age IQ,” and “potential IQ.” The latter is a “new” concept, which I first presented in 2003 and is essential for examining this issue properly. The other two concepts are older but are often interpreted inadequately, so I will briefly discuss this matter before addressing the problem itself, reviewing these concepts, and introducing more appropriate terminology from an etymological point of view.
Concepts of potential IQ (pIQ), rarity IQ (rIQ), age IQ (aIQ):
Age-IQ (aIQ):
The original concept of IQ was introduced by Alfred Binet, Theodore Simon, William Stern, and Lewis Terman, and it represented the division of mental age by chronological age, multiplying the result by a factor of 100. Binet understood that the term “mental age” was not appropriate and preferred the term “mental level.” However, after Binet’s death, the term “mental age” became established through common use.
There are several problems with this concept. For example: the IQ of a child with a chronological age of 10 years and a mental age of 15 years is 150, just as the IQ of a child with a chronological age of 5 years and a mental age of 7.5 years is also 150. However, when these children’s IQs are assessed in adulthood, it is found that both have less than 150. This occurs because the development of intelligence with age is not linear.
The “real” curve of intelligence development as a function of age is quite different from a straight line and is also not the same for different IQ ranges. The two graphs below show our 2024 model for curves, and the article explaining the meanings of the terms used in STL provides a more detailed explanation about the variation of intelligence with age, as well as critical analyses of the adjustments used in WAIS and others. This article can be found at https://www.sigmasociety.net/artigo/significados-stl.
As we can see, the real curve is very different from a straight line and does not reach its limit exactly at 16 years of age, nor does it remain stable throughout life.
In the WAIS, the results of each subtest are also considered separately, showing that the curves are not the same across these subtests. However, there are several issues with the WAIS, some of which I discuss in a specific article, in The Golden Book of Intelligence, and in volume 5 of The Apodictic Guide.
Similar curves of intelligence development as a function of age are observed in various other studies, even without the use of IQ tests, such as in the case of Chess ratings as a function of age.
For more details, see my article on the suspected fraud involving Niemann against Carlsen and the article describing the meanings of the terms used in the STL report. https://www.sigmasociety.net/artigo/niemannxcarlsen
We will use the term “age-IQ” or “aIQ” to represent this concept of IQ (the division of mental age by chronological age).
Some authors use the term “ratio-IQ,” which I do not consider appropriate as it does not specify the ratio between which variables are being considered. It could imply a ratio in the sense of “rarity,” which would create confusion.
Rarity-IQ (rIQ):
The method developed by Stern and Terman for calculating IQ based on the division of mental age by chronological age had distortions, because the development of intelligence as a function of age is not linear. In the 1930s, David Wechsler contributed to solving part of this problem by standardizing scores for each age group based on rarity. Thus, a 5-year-old child scoring higher than 99.87% of other children of the same age would have an IQ of 145 or a z-score of +3σ, and a 10-year-old child scoring higher than 99.87% of peers would also have an IQ of 145 or a z-score of +3σ. This eliminates the need to understand how intelligence varies with age, allowing for the measurement and modeling of this variation with age, among other advantages. Therefore, the method used by Wechsler for IQ test normalization remains the most used today, although there have been better methods available since 1950 and particularly since 2003.
At first glance, Wechsler’s approach to addressing how to measure intelligence on a more standardized scale appears better than Binet’s method and, in fact, is better in some respects, but worse in others, still presenting significant distortions.
One of the problems is that the “true” standard deviation of ability levels at age 5 is not the same as the “true” standard deviation at age 10, 16, or in adulthood. The distribution of intellectual levels varies with age, but Wechsler attempts to impose a constant distribution. To understand the implications of this error, one can compare it to height. The standard deviation for adult height is about 7.1 cm, while for 12-year-old adolescents, it is about 6.3 cm, and for 7-year-old children, it is 5.0 cm. There is a real variation in the true standard deviation depending on age, and imposing a constant standard deviation, such as 5 cm for all ages, would distort all scales, causing multiple issues of inconsistency, limiting procedures, and skewing calculations. This is what Wechsler did by imposing an artificial standard deviation of 15 for the distribution of IQs across all age groups.
In adulthood, the standard deviation ranges from 15.64 ±0.18 to 16.39 ±0.19. If one selects an age reference of 17.61 ± 0.34 years, the deviation is almost exactly 16.00 ±0.11. Moreover, if the weighted average IQ over a lifetime is calculated in 2022, this average corresponds to the intellectual level achieved at 17.44 ± 0.29 years. Thus, a standard deviation value of 16 can be adopted, with the reference age standardized at 17.5 years, as this age represents the lifetime average IQ. For other ages, IQ can be adjusted using the curves presented earlier. This approach avoids distortions, as it does not impose any arbitrary values but uses empirically obtained real values. It also does not force other age groups to have distributions with a specific standard deviation but calculates lifetime IQ based on the correction of the IQ at the age of examination. Since this lifetime IQ typically occurs at 17.5 years, it is correctly positioned in the spectrum where the standard deviation is 16. However, these are not the main points. The most crucial aspect is the way pIQ is conceptualized and calculated, allowing for the production of scores on a ratio scale.
Another problem with Wechsler’s methods is that when the number of people examined is around 1,000, it ensures an accurate measure of rarity up to 3 standard deviations above or below the mean, but one cannot attempt to extrapolate rarity estimates much beyond this range based solely on these data. This is because the distribution tails are often denser than in a normal distribution, and this relative density increases further from the mean. Therefore, even if the curve fits well within the -3σ to +3σ range, it does not guarantee a good fit outside this interval, and, in fact, it does not.
Another problem is that scores forced to fit a scale based on rarity do not preserve certain desirable properties, such as interval consistency, which has several negative implications. Let’s analyze just one of them:
Suppose a similar method were used to measure people’s height. In a group of 1,000 people, it is found that the distribution of heights is well represented by a normal distribution with a mean of 1.70 m and a standard deviation of 0.07 m. The same method proposed by David Wechsler is then adopted to measure height, that is, the level of rarity of people above or below a certain height or percentile is determined, this rarity or percentile is converted into a corresponding number of standard deviations above or below the mean, and then the height is calculated by adding that number of standard deviations to the population’s average height. For example: if a person is above 97.7% of the population, they are 2 standard deviations above the mean, so their height should be 2 × 0.07 m + 1.70 m = 1.84 m. Indeed, people above 97.7% in a population with an average of 1.70 m generally have a height of approximately 1.84 m. The same works well for 95%, 90%, 80%, 60%, etc. The problem arises when the percentile is much higher than 98% and especially above 99.9%. Let’s consider some extreme cases for clarity:
Following Wechsler’s procedure, one might determine that the tallest person recorded in history was 6.7 standard deviations above the mean, as 6.7 standard deviations correspond to the theoretical rarity level of 1/95,960,292,510. However, 6.7 standard deviations above the mean translates to 6.7 × 0.07 m + 1.70 m = 2.169 m. This implies that the tallest person in the world would be less than 2.17 m tall. This is a gross error because the tallest person recorded in history was 2.72 m tall, or 14.57 standard deviations above the mean. If the distribution of heights were normal, the probability of someone being 2.72 m tall would be less than 1 in 4.7 × 10^47. Thus, it is evident that this method produces grossly incorrect results when applied outside the -2σ to +2σ range.
In addition to being incorrect, the results are also inconsistent, which is even worse. If the values were merely incorrect but at least all errors were positioned well on an interval or ratio scale, some comparisons could be made without significant distortion. However, this is not possible (it is possible, but the comparisons are grossly distorted). To better understand this problem, consider the following situation: if height measurements were forced to fit a normal distribution, the value of 1 cm in the height range from 2.16 m to 2.17 m would be very different from 1 cm in the range from 1.70 m to 1.71 m. This would compromise the uniformity of scale intervals and distort proportional measurements using that scale. The value of 1 cm would not have the same length in different regions of the scale, which is a highly undesirable property. The scale is the “ruler” used for measurement. Measurements can obviously vary freely; a car can move at 100 km/h in one part of its path and 120 km/h in another. However, it is unreasonable to use 1 km with a length 20% greater in one part of the track (1 km = 1.2 km) to force the car’s speed to appear constant at 100 km/h. Treating 1 km as 1.2 km in different parts of the track is a severe inconsistency. What Wechsler does is exactly equivalent to this.
I mentioned the example of the intervals near 2.16 m and 1.70 m, but the distortion is present throughout the entire scale. The value of 1 cm would not be the same in different parts of the scale. This has serious and profound implications, as we will see later. Of course, there are some differences between measuring IQ and measuring lengths, because in the case of length, there is a well-established and well-known scale, while in the case of IQ scores, we were (and still are) in the phase of discovering how things work. The problem is that if a method is adopted that forces distortion onto the scale, it becomes impossible to progress in understanding and developing more complete and accurate methods. Therefore, one of the first necessary steps is precisely to correct the scale so that we can then work with a consistent metric.
We will use the term “rarity-IQ” or “rIQ” to represent the concept of IQ equivalent to a given level of theoretical rarity. This has been the concept used since Wechsler in the 1930s. As we have seen above, it is equivalent to using “rarity height,” which is a false and distorted measure of height, estimated based on the percentile of people who reach a certain height, instead of considering the true distance between the soles of the feet and the top of the head with the person standing upright.
Some authors use the term “deviation-IQ” to represent this concept, but this is not appropriate. The correct meaning of “deviation-IQ” is the number of standard deviations multiplied by the value of the standard deviation of the considered variable. In the case of IQ, it is multiplied by 16. This is not the same as IQ corresponding to a certain level of rarity. It would only be the same if the distribution were normal throughout the entire spectrum. The deviation-IQ is actually similar to pIQ, although not exactly, because the conceptual meaning of pIQ is different, but numerically they assume similar values.
Rarity-IQ does not represent deviation-IQ but rather the theoretical IQ corresponding to a certain level of rarity. Numerous experiments show that the real distribution of scores only adheres to a Gaussian distribution within the range of -2.5σ to +2.5σ. Outside this range, the tails are denser than in a normal distribution, so it cannot be said that a person who scored 160 (σ=15) is at the 99.997th percentile, based on a test with a distribution that has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 with 1,000 people. Even if the sample had 100,000 people or more, the score adjustment to rarity levels would be predominantly determined by the central mass of data between -2σ and +2σ, which contains more than 95% of the elements, having little sensitivity to the shape of the curve outside this range. What could be done is to adjust each score to each rarity level, in which case 160 could correspond to 1 in 30,000 or 99.997%, provided this was done during standardization. However, it would still be a distortion, for the reasons already explained, as the intervals would not be uniform.
Furthermore, the difficulty level of the questions would need to be appropriate for 160, and construct validity would need to be present at that level. This is not the case in the WAIS or in practically any other traditional IQ test, which is why these tests are not suitable for measuring IQs above +2σ or +2.5σ.
Other tests that use similar methods for standardization, such as LAIT, Mega, Titan, Ultra, and later ones, may have questions with an appropriate difficulty level to accurately measure up to about 165 or slightly higher, but they continue to face the problem of not establishing a correct correspondence between IQ and the true level of rarity. I published an article about this in 2002: “What is the true cut-off for high IQ societies?” Upon rereading that text, I noticed that the arguments I used at that time are outdated and no longer reflect my exact opinion, although, in essence, my opinion is almost the same. Therefore, I intend to write a better article on this, but in the meantime, it is recommended to read that one.
Potential-IQ (pIQ):
The ideal way to measure IQ would be on a scale where score intervals are equal in any region of the scale. A difference of 1 IQ point in the range from 100 to 101 should represent the same as the difference of 1 point in the range from 180 to 181 or between 36 and 37, or in any other region of the scale. Additionally, it would be desirable for IQs to be represented directly on a ratio scale or be directly convertible to a ratio scale.
A height of 1.80 m, for example, represents twice the height of 0.90 m. But an IQ of 180 does not represent twice the IQ of 90. The acoustic intensity of 50 dB is 100 times greater than the intensity of 30 dB, just as the acoustic intensity of 90 dB is 100 times greater than that of 70 dB, or 1,000 times greater than that of 60 dB, or 316 times the acoustic intensity of 65 dB. The measure of acoustic intensity is not directly on a ratio scale but is directly convertible to a ratio scale by taking the antilog of the values. Chess ratings are also not on a ratio scale but can be directly converted to one. This is an important and desirable property in any measurement process.
In the case of IQ, two problems need to be resolved: how to place scores on a consistent ratio scale and what the meaning of this “ratio” is, i.e., what the measurement represents as the “ratio between what?”
The first attempts to solve this problem were based on time. If a person completes a test in 75% of the allotted time, an extrapolation is made. Or based on age. But these simplistic views lead to gross and bizarre errors. If the test ceiling is 134 with a 40-minute time limit, but the person completes it in 20 minutes, it does not make sense to consider that 134×4020=268134×2040=268. This would be a very naive and highly unrealistic approach. It is necessary to first understand the properties of the scale and how the scores relate to each other in order to adjust them to a scale that allows for calculating proportions.
A temperature of 200º F is not twice that of 100º F, just as 20º C is not twice that of 10º C. To know the correct proportions, it is necessary first to convert to an appropriate scale, which in the case of temperature is the Kelvin scale. The points “0” and “100” on the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales were arbitrarily established based on the freezing and boiling points of water, or the melting point of ammonium chloride and the average body temperature. The Kelvin scale was established based on the relationship between temperature and gas pressure; it was observed that pressure varied linearly with temperature, and as there was a minimum limit of pressure (the vacuum), it was concluded that there would also be a minimum temperature limit. If a gas at 100º C has a pressure 1.3661 times higher than the same gas at 0º C, and if temperature varies linearly with pressure, the “true” 0 point of the scale should be 100×1.36611−1.3661=100=−273.15100×1−1.36611.3661=100=−273.15. There are some inaccuracies in this thesis, as pressure does not vary perfectly linearly with temperature, nor does it vary equally for all gases, nor is it appropriate to take pressure as a reference, but it was an important step in determining the approximate position of the true 0 point of the temperature scale. The advantage of this scale is that it allows statements like “200 K is indeed twice 100 K.” Additionally, these values can be squared, cubed, logarithms can be applied, and all other operations can be used.
In the case of Chess ratings, the situation is somewhat different, as the ratio scale arises from the antilog of the rating. A rating of 2000 is not twice that of 1000. The formula for finding the proportions is PaPb=10Ra–Rb400, where Pa and Pb are the probabilities of success for players “a” and “b,” while Ra and Rb are the ratings of those players. Thus, a player with a rating of 2000 has a much greater probability than 2:1 of defeating a player with a rating of 1000; more precisely, the probability is 316 times greater, or 316:1, meaning the player has a 99.68477% probability of success versus 0.31523%. In this context, one can say that the strength of “a” is 316 times greater than that of “b.” This is a consistent interpretation that preserves certain properties. For example: if A defeats B at a ratio of 3:1 and B defeats C at a ratio of 5:1, then A defeats C at a ratio of 15:1. Applying the rating formula, this works perfectly, and if these players face each other in a sufficiently large number of matches, it can also be experimentally verified that the proportions are approximately correct, with minor disparities due to repertoire, style, and other particularities. However, if considering 1,000 players from team A, 1,000 from team B, and 1,000 from team C, where team A players defeat team B players at a ratio of 3:1, and team B players defeat team C players at a ratio of 5:1, then team A players will defeat team C players at a ratio of 15:1, because in larger samples, individual peculiarities are diluted, and the effective proportions between strengths prevail.
Instead of trying to measure IQ proportions based on test completion times, which has been attempted many times and proven fruitless and distorted, an appropriate procedure seems to resemble what is done in Chess. The challenge is how to interpret this relationship, because in Chess, players compete against other players, whereas in tests, individuals face questions. My interpretation in 2003 was that it could be considered how many people with IQ = A would be needed to solve the same number of questions (or achieve the same score) as one individual with IQ = B, where B >> A.
In the 2003 article, I describe how standardization can be done to achieve this goal, resulting in a legitimate scale of potential ratio, with several notable features that make it superior to traditional scales. The main advantage is that the intervals on the scale are “correct,” providing a score independent of rarity, based on the proportion of potential. Then, true rarity can be calculated without imposing the false hypothesis that score distributions must be Gaussian. Another important advantage is that it allows scores to be generated with minimal uncertainty near the ceiling, even when there are few people in the standardization sample. Another advantage is that it produces more accurate scores by weighting the points of questions based on difficulty, with difficulty determined by the inverse of the number of correct answers. If a person accidentally misses an easy question but answers much more difficult ones correctly, the penalty for the oversight is minimal and practically does not affect the final result. If they get questions 5 to 25 correct on the ST and miss the first 4, the score is nearly the same (less than a 0.5-point difference) as if they answered all 25 correctly. This is consistent with the meaning of intelligence at the highest levels, where minor oversights and small errors are irrelevant. It is not important if Einstein made small errors in Euclidean Geometry or Arithmetic; this does not diminish his achievements in revolutionizing our understanding of Physics.
The solution for placing IQ scores on a ratio scale can be done in at least two ways:
Converting IQs into Chess ratings and using the Elo formula to calculate the proportion between the probabilities of victory for those ratings.
Calculating the proportions of how many people with each score correspond to one person with a higher score.
This is explained in more detail in the 2003 article.
Before proceeding, it is important to emphasize that determining IQ is not as straightforward as determining height or weight using a simple ratio scale like a ruler or a scale. Weight and height are natively on ratio scales, but IQ is not, nor is the Wechsler standardized score, the raw score from Binet—Stern—Terman, or any other score using traditionally utilized methods. Therefore, the first step is to place the scores on a ratio scale. However, there is no formula for this. It is necessary to interpret the properties of the variable being measured and create an appropriate method for converting the raw score obtained in the test into a score that is on a ratio scale or directly convertible to a ratio scale. The method I propose in this article does precisely that, producing pIQ scores, whose antilog is on a potential ratio scale.
Concept of “potential ratio”: If one person has an IQ of 100 and another has an IQ of 130, it is evident that one cannot say the person with an IQ of 130 is 1.3 times more intelligent or 30% more intelligent. The meaning of potential ratio is derived from the following relationship: if a person with a pIQ of 100 correctly answers 7 out of 30 questions in an intelligence test, while another person with a pIQ of 130 correctly answers 18 out of 30 questions on the same test, this does not reveal much about their comparative potential. Based on this data, it would be very wrong to say that a person with a pIQ of 130 is 18/7 times more intelligent than a person with a pIQ of 100 just because they answered 18/7 times more questions correctly. Considering the time each took to solve the same number of questions would be a less flawed approach but still inadequate.
The correct way to address this problem is as follows: if 20 people with a pIQ of 100, working independently on the same set of problems, can collectively solve 18 out of 30 (18/30) questions, while one person with a pIQ of 130 can also score 18/30, we can say that the potential of a person with a pIQ of 130 is equivalent to that of 20 people with a pIQ of 100, or 20 times greater than that of a person with a pIQ of 100, or that a person with a pIQ of 130 produces intellectually as much as 20 people with a pIQ of 100 combined.
Similarly, if a person with a pIQ of 160 solves 23 out of 30 questions, we can expect that 20 people with a pIQ of 130 combined could also solve 23/30, and 400 people with a pIQ of 100 could also solve 23/30. This is a very important detail because the difference between 160 and 130 is the same as the difference between 130 and 100; thus, the potential ratio must also be the same for the scale to be consistent and for the value of 1 IQ point to be the same in any region of the scale. For a more detailed discussion on this topic, see my book “Chess, the 2022 Best Players of All Time, Two New Rating Systems”, where I explain in detail why this property needs to be present for a psychometric instrument to be consistent. See also “The Golden Book of Intelligence”.
This hypothesis is well-founded and can be extensively confirmed in different ways. For example, based on data from over 70,000 chess players ranked by FIDE (2003), encompassing a total of 2,300,000 games played since 1971, the point proportions between players rated 2000 and 2400 are the same as those between players rated 2400 and 2800, or between 1200 and 1600. This holds true for any other region of the scale and any other difference. For instance, in matches between players rated 2175 and 1960, the results have the same proportion as those between players rated 2422 and 2207, because in both cases, the difference between the players is 215 points. This preserves the interval consistency of the scale.
Similarly, these proportions can also be verified among the scores of the Sigma Test. The total number of correct answers obtained by 20 people with scores between 125 and 135 (*), excluding repeated answers, is almost equal to the number of correct answers by one person with a score of 160. In other words, a person with a score of 160 can solve the same number of questions as 20 people with an average score of 130. This applies to any other IQ differences, maintaining a ratio of approximately 20:1 for every 30-point difference in score. When I mentioned the range of 125 to 135, it is important to note that the weighted average is not exactly 130, but I used this range as representative of a group with an average of 130 to simplify the explanation. To calculate the potential of a group with IQs between 125 and 135, one would first need to determine the potential of each member, calculate the arithmetic mean of their potentials, and then convert that value to pIQ. Assuming the scores between 125 and 135 are uniformly distributed, the average potential of this group would be equivalent to an IQ of 130.49302. If the scores in this group are distributed according to how IQs (pIQ) are found in the population, with all IQs rounded to whole numbers, the average potential would be equivalent to an IQ of 129.43614. Therefore, the error is small when considering 130, which simplifies the didactic presentation.
However, as we will see later, scores based on rarity-IQ fail in these predictions for ranges above 135, and if 20 people with an rIQ of 100 produce as much as 1 person with an rIQ of 130, the same proportion does not hold when comparing 20 people with an IQ of 130 to one with 160. Before this, it is necessary to correct the scale by converting rIQ to pIQ.
For IQ scores to be on a scale whose antilog is a ratio scale, pIQ must be measured, not rIQ. This is not a problem, as the vast majority of tests already measure pIQ, but they are incorrectly interpreted as measuring rIQ.
pIQ is the “natural score,” so to speak, calculated in result extrapolations when applying a test to a few hundred or a few thousand people and then estimating IQs for much larger rarity levels than the sample size. Therefore, pIQ has been extensively used for over 100 years, but it has been misinterpreted as rIQ, since the concept of pIQ did not exist until now.
The distribution of pIQ is not normal. It has a dense tail on the right. Therefore, the true level of rarity is different, and this difference becomes greater for higher IQs.
The term “pIQ” that we are introducing is a logarithmic measure that represents intellectual capacity. The difference ΔpIQ between pIQs relates to the proportion between the intellectual levels of individuals P1 and P2:
P1/P2=e^k∆pIQ
Where k≈1/0.09959k≈1/0.09959 (~10.041).
Representing IQs in the form of pIQ offers significant advantages over the use of rarity-IQ, not only because it allows for the extraction of information that would not be accessible by other methods and more accurate calculations of true levels of rarity, but also because it enables more accurate standardizations even with smaller sample sizes, among other conceptual and operational advantages.
To maintain similarity with traditional IQ (rIQ), pIQ values are calibrated primarily in the range of 70 to 130, where rIQs are very similar to pIQs. Outside this range, pIQ values gradually diverge from rIQ values, as rIQ values become increasingly distorted, while pIQ scores preserve interval consistency.
One important advantage of pIQ is that the ceiling of a test can be estimated based on the sum of the potentials of the people needed to solve all items. For example, a test with 50 questions where no one scored more than 42 correct answers, but only 2 questions were unanswered by all participants, can have its norm correctly calculated up to a raw score of 48, even if no one came close to that score. Additionally, it ensures that the metric used in scoring is more uniform, similar to what occurs when measuring height, weight, and other quantities on a ratio scale. In “The Golden Book of Intelligence”, there is a detailed description of how to perform these calculations, with illustrative examples for clarity.
The distribution of pIQ scores has properties different from those of rIQ, featuring a dense right tail and an asymptotic limit at 0. The rIQ does not have asymptotic limits on the x-axis, varying from -∞ to +∞. The graph below shows a comparison between the theoretical curve and the actual curve of IQ distributions:
To better visualize the magnitude of the error in rarity levels calculated based on rIQs, we also plotted the distributions on a logarithmic scale:
The actual level of rarity is many orders of magnitude different from the correct value for higher rIQs, although it is close to the correct value for rIQs below 135.
The table below shows the rIQs corresponding to pIQs in the range of 41 to 265 pIQ, which approximately covers the range from 0 to 214 rIQ:
As can be seen, in the range of 90 to 140, pIQ and rIQ values are very similar, with differences of less than 2.5 points. However, above 159, the differences start to exceed 5 points and grow rapidly.
The nominal values measured by home tests are not exactly pIQ but are very similar to pIQ; however, they are interpreted as if they were rIQ and are statistically treated as if they were rIQ. Percentiles and rarity levels are calculated as if they were rIQ, resulting in significant distortions between actual rarities and the estimated theoretical rarities. Thus, a group of fewer than 10,000 tested individuals reports 13 scores at the 99.9999999th percentile (1 in 1 billion) and above, with some results reaching rarity levels of 1 in 10 billion or more.
Of course, a group of 10,000 selected individuals is very different from a group of random people, and this must be taken into account when analyzing this situation. It is also necessary to consider that at higher IQ levels, there is a greater likelihood that individuals will be motivated to take tests, as the reward serves as an attractive incentive. Therefore, in a group of only 10,000 self-selected individuals, a higher concentration of people with IQs far above average is expected, in a much greater proportion than would be observed in a non-select population. On the other hand, for a significant number of people with IQs near the global ceiling, the interest in spending time on these IQ tests is minimal, effectively excluding some of the world’s most intelligent individuals, such as Perelman, Witten, Wiles, Smale, Scholze, etc. Additionally, some of those with the highest scores, like Tao, were only evaluated in childhood. If home tests were administered broadly to all Fields Medalists, Abel Prize winners, Nobel laureates in Physics, Turing Award recipients, and other similar prize winners, how many people in the world would fall into the 99.9999999th percentile? The number would certainly be much higher than predicted.
Most Nobel laureates were only tested in childhood with tests capped below 150 or 160, making it difficult to correctly determine their IQs, and clinical tests overemphasize speed in solving elementary problems while not including truly challenging questions. This results in an inadequate ceiling of difficulty as well as a lack of construct validity above 140. Terman’s longitudinal study from 1926, which did not select the two Nobel laureates among its candidates and included none among the 1,528 selected, shows that traditional tests with a true ceiling near 130 work well up to that level but fail significantly in assessing individuals with IQs much above 150. Garth Zietsman’s study on the average IQ of Nobel laureates in science also shows major distortions, suggesting that Nobel winners have an average IQ of 154, implying that among every 3,000 random individuals, one would be potentially capable of winning a Nobel Prize, when in reality, the correct rarity is much higher. It is often argued that this occurs because the variable measured by tests is not the same as what is required to win prizes like the Nobel. Indeed, this is a serious issue because the Nobel Prize more accurately reflects intellectual level at the highest echelons than cognitive tests do. Cognitive tests, in fact, are unable to accurately measure scores above 150 and already show significant errors around 140. This issue is unrelated to pIQ and rIQ; it is another problem related to the lack of construct validity at higher levels and the use of questions with inadequate difficulty levels.
If the model used to convert rIQ to pIQ has parameter values reasonably close to the correct values, an IQ of 196 corresponds to an actual rarity level close to 1 in 2,200,000, and an IQ of 176 corresponds to 1 in 54,000. This does not mean that these scores on home tests reflect those rarity levels, as home test scores are not exactly in pIQ. Generally, in older home tests (by Langdon and Hoeflin), scores fall at an intermediate level between pIQ and rIQ, slightly closer to pIQ. In more recent home tests, the values are almost equal to pIQ and sometimes even higher. In the case of the Sigma Test, scores are calculated in both pIQ and rIQ, but since rIQ scores are determined based on correlations and calibrations with other tests, they are subject to the same distortions present in other home tests. Because rIQs on home tests for IQs below 140 are reasonably accurate, these can be used to establish reference points on the scale and then convert scores to pIQ, allowing for the determination of other values on the pIQ scale.
Therefore, ideally, all tests intended to measure IQs above 130, and especially above 140, should use the standardization method described in my 2003 article, explicitly calculating pIQ, then converting it to rIQ and correctly calculating the corresponding rarity levels.
In 2001 and 2003, I had already suggested this before there were any members in Giga Society. Now, with 13 members, the error is becoming more apparent. If a $2,000,000 prize were offered to anyone who achieved the score of 207 necessary for entry into Grail Society, instead of charging fees of $10 to $50, it is likely that those working on Clay Institute problems would dedicate substantial time to these tests, with a high probability that some would pass, making the error in the norms more evident, as people with theoretical rarity levels of 1 in 1 trillion or even rarer would start appearing. This has already happened—Dany Provost scored 236 (sd=16) on one of Paul Cooijmans’ tests, far exceeding the 207 required for Grail Society membership. Grail Society claims a cut-off at the level of 1 in 88,099,823,088, but among those who took Cooijmans’ tests, some have scored much higher than 207. Theoretically, only 1 in 105,490,408,417,274,112 people should reach 236, yet two have achieved this on Paul Cooijmans’ tests. Dany Provost was also tested with the Sigma Test and obtained an extraordinary result, ranking among the highest scores, qualifying for Sigma V, and was later invited to Sigma VI, though I am not permitted to disclose the result (the 236 score he obtained on Cooijmans’ tests became public when it was posted on the Giga Society website, so I see no problem mentioning it here).
Considering that Cooijmans’ tests have a relatively strong correlation with other high-range IQ tests, it becomes evident that there are significant errors not only in the norms of these tests but also in the rarity levels corresponding to each score. An additional issue with Cooijmans’ tests, which I explained in my 2022 interview for the In-Sight Journal, is that there are numerous errors in the answer key. These errors are not exclusive to Cooijmans’ tests; there are also many errors (and more severe and fundamental ones) in the WAIS.
IQ scores measured by most home tests are reasonably close to the “correct” values (in pIQ) near the ceiling and for much of the norm, but the corresponding rarity levels are grossly overestimated.
The graph below shows the difficulty levels (rIQ) of items on the Sigma Test (red), Titan Test (yellow), and Mega Test (blue):
Both the Mega and Titan tests have a very large number of items with nearly the same difficulty level (between 140 and 150), which do not contribute to distinguishing skill levels above and below that range. Of the 48 questions, the Titan test has only 4 with a difficulty level above 150 IQ. The Mega test has 13 with difficulty above 150, but only 1 with difficulty above 160. The questions are interesting, but the difficulty level is not suitable for distinguishing scores above 170, and with great optimism, they might distinguish around 165.
The fact that the most difficult questions on the Sigma Test have a higher difficulty level than the hardest questions on the Mega and Titan tests does not necessarily mean it is more difficult to achieve a perfect score on the Sigma Test. An item with a difficulty rIQ of 150 means there is a 50% probability of being solved by a person with an IQ of 150. If 200 people with a pIQ of 150 try to solve this item, 100 of them will succeed, and 100 will not.
Therefore, when considering 2 questions with a difficulty level of 150, if they are not correlated, there is a 25% probability that a person with an IQ of 150 will solve both. If there are 3 questions that are uncorrelated, the probability of a person with an IQ of 150 solving all three drops to 12.5%, and so on. The more questions there are, the lower the probability of getting all of them right, even if they all have the same difficulty level.
When these questions are strongly correlated, the situation changes, and the probability of solving one or all of them becomes almost the same, depending on how strong the correlation is between them. For example, questions 21, 22, and 23 of the Sigma Test function almost as if they were a single question because many people who solve question 21 also solve questions 22 and 23. Question 23 is harder than 22, and 22 is harder than 21, but the general idea that leads to the solution of one is almost identical to what leads to solving the others. Therefore, these questions are very redundant and do not contribute much more to the discrimination level of the test than if only one of them were present. This comment also helps to better understand what I mentioned in the introduction of the STE about a very high Cronbach’s alpha being an undesirable characteristic, as it indicates high redundancy among the questions. In the STE, there are few questions with this problem, but in most tests, there are dozens or even all questions with this issue.
It is also important to clarify that solving 20 questions with a difficulty level of 150 is not comparable to solving 1 question with a difficulty level of 180. The probabilities may be the same in both cases, but the meanings are not. By analogy, one can think about the difficulty of obtaining a score of 160 on a timed test, where the questions are much easier than those on a home test, and compare it to the difficulty of scoring 160 on a home test. The probability of achieving IQ=160 may be the same in both cases; however, what is being measured in the timed test is not the same variable being measured in the home test. They are different competencies. Therefore, solving 20 questions with a difficulty level of 150 on a home test is not as reliable an indicator of an intellectual level of 180 as solving 1 question with a level of 180, even if the probability of achieving that level of correctness is similar. On the other hand, the uncertainty of the result based on only 1 question is greater than when based on 20 questions.
Obviously, solving 20 out of 20 questions is very different from solving 20 out of 40 questions, even if all have a similar difficulty level. However, it is not at all obvious that the interpretation of this differs for different IQ levels. For IQs below 140, solving 20 out of 20 is much more impressive than solving 20 out of 40, but for IQs above 200, solving 20 out of 20 or 20 out of 40 is not as different. This happens for several reasons: questions with a difficulty level of 150 often require “common” knowledge or knowledge that can be quickly acquired. At higher levels, questions typically require specialized knowledge. This creates challenges for individuals from one field to solve problems in another. For example, Einstein solved many problems with a difficulty level above 200, but if he were tasked with solving a set of 20 level-200 questions selected by someone else without considering his expertise, he might solve fewer than five. It would be like asking Perelman to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem or asking Wiles to prove Thurston’s Geometrization Theorem. Both would probably struggle. But if the questions were switched, they would likely succeed. If both were presented to Tao, despite his many significant achievements, it is possible that none of the problems he has solved would be as monumental as these.
At higher levels, choosing the problems one wants to work on requires different evaluation criteria. For Wiles, decades of study were necessary to master the tools, techniques, resources, and theorems needed to understand the parts of the problem already solved by his predecessors and then make further advancements. Understanding the problem and partial solutions discovered so far requires years or decades, and one cannot dedicate such time without strong motivation—usually driven by a deep desire to solve that specific problem. Tao works on problems that take less time to master, allowing him to solve more problems, but they are not as monumental as those tackled by Perelman and Wiles. Even at the level of problems Tao addresses, it takes at least a few months to master each topic, which also requires significant motivation. Therefore, presenting 40 such high-level problems and expecting someone to learn each one and devote months or years to solving them is unrealistic. An alternative is to create difficult problems that do not require years or months of study to master, but it is extremely difficult to design problems with these characteristics.
The STE tries to use questions that do not require extensive specialized knowledge, and where some knowledge is needed, a few days or hours are generally enough to learn what is necessary. This allows for a reasonable assessment at higher levels, although there are still criticisms to be made and some limitations to the test. However, it is perhaps the best tool for properly assessing IQs above 150 and certainly the best for levels above 170.
On the Miyaguchi website (http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/), raw data from various people who took the Mega Test and Titan Test were available for download. Using this data, an estimate of the norms for these two tests was made using the method described in the 2003 Sigma Test norm article. However, the spreadsheets available on the Miyaguchi site do not provide results for all items for all test-takers, creating some biases in the results.
Raw data from other tests is not available online, so the 2003 study only considered these two psychometric instruments by Ronald Hoeflin and the Sigma Test itself. In the case of the LS60, if there are no errors in the answer key, the fact that no one has scored near the ceiling may indicate a higher ceiling than other tests. However, it would be necessary to ensure that all the answers in the key are indeed the best for each item so that “errors” are truly errors. This is important because many tests have significant flaws in their answer keys, as I mentioned in my 2022 interview with the In-Sight Journal and in some articles.
Even if the LS60 does not contain errors in the answer key, there would still be the question of whether the difficulty level of the items is appropriate and whether the questions truly measure what they are intended to measure. It would be useful to investigate the variation in Cronbach’s alpha as a function of item difficulty. If Cronbach’s alpha decreases near the ceiling of the test, this could indicate that the most difficult items are not discriminating correctly. A traditional item analysis could also help in this investigation. However, there would be other details to consider.
The correlation between the Mega Test and traditional IQ tests (pre-Omni) showed a relatively weak correlation (0.33) and was entirely determined by a single score: Marilyn’s. If her score is removed from the list, the correlation drops close to 0 and becomes slightly negative!
Without the 230 score (likely Marilyn’s):
The other sample of correlations presented on the site also shows a correlation of 0.33.
It is strange that a person with an IQ of 93 answered 29 questions correctly, while someone with an IQ of 151 answered only 3, a person with an IQ of 73 got 18 correct, and there are other anomalies. In the case of the person with an IQ of 151 who got 3 right, they might have thought it would take too long and submitted incomplete answers. In the case of the person with an IQ of 73 who got 18 correct, it is harder to explain—they might have received help from someone else, but it would already be unusual for someone with an IQ of 73 to be interested in taking the Mega Test. It is possible that the person provided a joke score for the 73 or intentionally answered incorrectly, as may have happened with Poincaré. In any case, it would be worthwhile for Hoeflin to filter these results suspected of error so they do not compromise the calculation of the norm.
The fact remains that there are evident errors in this data. The results presented on the site suggest that some individuals may have received help with solving the problems or may have reported an incorrect IQ score. Self-reports appear to be unreliable.
Without filtering these errors, the results suggest that the test ceiling is around 155 to 160, not 190+.
Removing scores below 100 increases the correlation slightly to 0.42, but the ceiling still seems to be around 155 to 160.
An interesting filtering method could be based on the distance on the y-axis between the scores and the regression line, removing scores with a distance greater than 2 or 2.5 standard deviations, repeating the process after each filtering as the parameters of the line would change with each iteration. The process would stop once the parameters stabilized. If removing 10% to 20% of the data did not stabilize it, the process would be halted after filtering to less than 80% of the original data. Other alternatives would be to use robust regression methods such as Tukey, Huber, or Hampel, or methods like LASSO or MLESAC.
The norms for the Mega Test and the Titan Test, based on the method described in the 2003 Sigma Test norm article I published at that time, suggest that the real ceiling of these tests is between 165 and 170. Bob Seitz mentioned arriving at a similar result. The old norm by Grady Towers suggests a ceiling near 200 and can be accessed here: http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/gradynorm.html. Kevin Langdon also calculated a norm with a ceiling around 170, and more recently, in 2019, David Aly Redvaldsen calculated a norm where the ceiling is near 172.
The norm I calculated in 2003 may be biased because I used only the data available on the Miyaguchi site, which includes 500 and 519 scores out of a total of over 3,000. It is possible that the correct ceiling is slightly above an rIQ of 170, but it would hardly reach rIQ 180 or even 175. As for pIQ, it should reach about 190 or 200.
The data on the Miyaguchi site could be accessed on these pages:
Both the Mega Test and the Titan Test seem to me to be good psychometric instruments. More than that, they are groundbreaking, as they were, shortly after the LAIT, among the first to accurately measure IQs above 135 using questions with difficulty levels compatible with the intellectual level supposedly being measured. However, the calculation of percentiles from the scores is incorrect, and this error has been repeated and propagated widely.
Therefore, it is not enough for a test to be inherently good in the sense of having well-crafted questions and being well-standardized. It is also important to distinguish between pIQ and rIQ to avoid calculating rarity levels using absurd values, which create evident inconsistencies and compromise the credibility of some high-IQ societies by claiming to be in a percentile where they clearly are not.
A “good mental performance test” needs to have the following characteristics:
Questions with varying levels of difficulty, compatible with the IQ range the test aims to measure.
Questions that require different types of thinking. An excessively high Cronbach’s alpha (greater than 0.85, for example) is not an advantage. On the contrary, it may indicate that the questions are overly redundant and do not cover a sufficient variety of skills, but instead measure a very narrow and specialized set of abilities.
A difficulty ceiling compatible with the IQ ceiling intended to be measured. This is one of the most common problems. Tests with an appropriate difficulty ceiling for IQs around 165 often have nominal ceilings of 190 or more, though their real ceilings are limited to about 170.
Should not be culturally overloaded.
If the test’s purpose is to correctly measure IQs above 130, it should not provoke errors through time constraints. Errors should be due to the real difficulty of the questions.
This list is not exhaustive but includes some of the most important criteria.
A test with dozens of very easy questions, such as the WAIS, Stanford-Binet, Cattell, or RAPM, may be suitable only for pIQs up to 135-140. Beyond this level, these tests only indicate which individuals with pIQs above 130 are faster at solving simple problems, but they do not differentiate between individuals with pIQs of 140 and 150, let alone distinguish those with pIQs much above 150.
These tests might indicate that individuals scoring 25/30 achieve a rarity level of 1 in 1,000, and those scoring 20/30 reach a rarity level of 1 in 200, but this does not mean that someone scoring 20/30 has an IQ of 140 and someone scoring 25/30 has an IQ of 150. Above the 140 level, the test is assessing which individuals with IQs of 140+ are faster. While speed correlates positively with intelligence, it is not a strong correlation and becomes weaker at higher levels. Thus, the person who scored 25/30 could indeed have an IQ of 150, but could also be an individual with an IQ of 140 whose speed is higher than 80% of others with an IQ of 140. In this case, they would be in the top 20%, or 1 in 1,000, while the person who scored 20/30 could have an IQ of 140 or even 150, 160, 170, etc., but their speed might be average for the group of people with 140 or slightly below the average for that group.
These distortions do not only occur at the 140+ level but at virtually any IQ level. The reason for highlighting this issue specifically at the 140+ level is that the distortions become much more significant beyond this point because deeper thinking becomes more crucial in determining intelligence than reasoning speed. A famous example of severe distortion is the IQ of Feynman, who scored 123, though his correct pIQ was likely around 220.
Therefore, a carefully standardized test, based on millions of test-takers, capable of theoretically discriminating at a level of 1 in 40,000,000 (rIQ 187), such as the Cattell III, would not be valid outside the IQ range of 60-135, unless the questions were difficult enough to correctly measure above 130, easy enough to measure below 60, and the number of casual correct answers (guessing all questions) was very different from the number of correct answers corresponding to an IQ of 60.
A well-standardized test, such as the Mega Test or Titan Test, can correctly discriminate at levels well above 135, potentially reaching pIQ 180 or pIQ 190. However, when calculating the corresponding theoretical percentiles, the results are far from accurate.
See also the original article in which I presented this standardization method in 2003, applying the same method to calculate the norms for the Sigma Test, Mega Test, and Titan Test: Archived Link
Some revisions to the 2003 text:
In the 2003 article, it states:
The estimated uncertainty at the ceiling of the Sigma Test, according to the 2003 article, is about 0.4 pIQ points (243.6 ± 0.4). A very interesting comment from our friend Albert Frank deserves to be included here and clarified. He roughly states:
“The difficulty level of question 35 of the Sigma Test is 66, but if tomorrow someone takes the test and gets this question right, the level would drop to 44. Therefore, the test ceiling cannot have an uncertainty of just 0.4.”
This comment is entirely relevant, but if question 35 of the ST has a weight of 66 and tomorrow someone answers it correctly and the weight drops to 44, this would affect the highest score by 4 points (from 206 to 202), and the other 5 people who had fractional points for partially correct answers would see a 0.2 variation in their IQs. The other IQs would not experience any change greater than 0.05. This might create the illusion that the highest scores have an uncertainty of 4 points and the ceiling would have even greater uncertainty, but that is not the case because the probability of the next testee answering this question correctly must be considered. If the probability were 1 in 2, then indeed there would be an uncertainty of about 2 points in the highest score. However, all available data suggests that the probability is around 1 in 67, so the uncertainty is much smaller than 4 points, probably around 0.06. This uncertainty is based on a single question. The combined uncertainty of the 36 questions should be approximately 0.06×350.06×35, or: 0.36. However, the method for estimating this uncertainty may be inappropriate. Still, the uncertainty is likely small across most of the scale from 100 to 200 (error less than 1 point) and could reach up to 5 points at the ceiling.
It is also important to consider that the value pIQ = 243.6 ± 0.4 is the uncertainty at the ceiling of the test, assuming that the parameters used in the calculation – s=0.1370s=0.1370 and k=10.041k=10.041 – are correct. The uncertainty at the ceiling is not the same as the uncertainty in the score of a person who scored at the ceiling, due to the probability of random success in each question, especially those with few “plausible” options. Although it is not explicitly a multiple-choice test, it functions in practice as if it were a test with few plausible alternatives. The uncertainty for each individual score is generally 5 to 10 points, but the uncertainty for each value in the norm is much smaller, generally E/N0.5E/N0.5, where EE is the average of individual errors and NN is the number of people tested.
First of all, it is important to clarify the difference between “precision,” “accuracy,” and “repeatability.” The accuracy of the test certainly does not come close to 0.4 points. The error is likely greater than 5 points, and in some cases, it could be greater than 10 points. Precision might be somewhat better. Repeatability—if the same person retakes the test, putting in maximum effort on the first attempt and not knowing which answers were correct on the second attempt—might have an error close to 1 point. In all cases, the error should be greater than 0.4. Therefore, there is an underestimation of the error in my 2003 article, and Albert Frank’s critique is correct in relation to the IQs of the assessed individuals, but not in relation to the values in the norm, whose uncertainty truly is around 0.4.
The difference between a person’s true IQ and the score generated by the test should be more than 5 points near the ceiling, and perhaps more than 10 points. Moreover, the error is likely to be strongly asymmetric (the downward error is much larger than the upward error). For example, a result of 210 might indicate a range between 190 and 215, with less upward dispersion than downward.
There are some additional errors and other details in the 2003 article that I may revise in the future.
Some recommended links:
Opinions on the 2003 Sigma Test norms and the new standardization method proposed:
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Melão H. On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Melão, H. (2024, November 22). ‘On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): MELAO, H. On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Melão, H. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Melão, H. “On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23.
Harvard: Melão, H. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23.
Harvard (Australian): Melão, H 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Melão, Hindemburg. “On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Melão H. On High-Range Test Construction 23: Hindemburg Melão Jr., A Ratio Scale for Cognitive Testing [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-23.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Reuven Kotleras, from a secular-Jewish background between Vienna and Vilnius, excelled academically, earning dual Bachelor’s from MIT and a Ph.D. from Michigan. High intelligence was identified early, confirmed at age four. He highlighted society’s mixed treatment of geniuses, citing da Vinci and Einstein as examples. Kotleras believes genius involves unique insight and distinguishes it from general intelligence. His career spanned teaching, research, and policy roles. He dispelled myths about innate genius, emphasizing the need for skill development. Influenced by Stoic pragmatism, organized complexity, and Mahayana Buddhism, Kotleras finds life’s meaning in discovery, believes in reincarnation, and views love as complex.
Keywords: academic excellence, complex love, discovery and meaning, high intelligence, Mahayana Buddhism, societal treatment of geniuses, Stoic pragmatism.
Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Reuven Kotleras: There were none, actually.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Kotleras: Not applicable.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Kotleras: If you draw a line on a map from Vienna, Austria, to Vilnius, Lithuania, then all eight great-grandparents were born within 100 miles of this line. All sides of the family immigrated to the United States in the early, middle, or late nineteenth century. Both parents were from Brookline, Massachusetts. The family was secular-Jewish.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Kotleras: Satisfactory.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Kotleras: I earned two Bachelor’s degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by the age of 20, and later a Ph.D. from The University of Michigan. There were also a good number of pre-doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships that took me to cities and institutions where I would not otherwise have had the opportunity to be.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Kotleras: To measure Spearman’s g, now often called the “g-factor” and which represents general intelligence.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Kotleras: Very early. It was suspected by my parents well before age two and confirmed by testing at about age four.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Kotleras: Groups and masses of people like to treat individuals who are not like them in special ways.
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Kotleras: To choose at random from only the modern era: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin. For the pre-modern eras, one can confidently name Aristotle and Hildegard of Bingen.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Kotleras: I think the Schopenhauer quotation gets this: “Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.”
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Kotleras: This seems to be the case.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Kotleras: File clerk, photocopy shop drone, office boy, secondary school teacher, graduate teaching assistant, research assistant, professor, researcher, research director, editor, journalist, international affairs analyst, policy analyst, policy advisor.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Kotleras: It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Kotleras: One of the deleterious myths is that genius is innate and therefore guarantees success, whereas any potential requires development and learning such necessary skill-sets as resilience and adaptability.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Kotleras: Not to speak of.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Kotleras: A significant part.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Kotleras: I prefer not to be very detailed. Let’s just say a lower bound of +5 sigma and an upper bound of +7 sigma, with the greatest likelihood somewhere between +6 and +7.
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Kotleras: [See reply to previous question.]
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Kotleras: Stoic pragmatism.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Kotleras: Organized complexity.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Kotleras: Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Kotleras: Pragmatic realism.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Kotleras: Madhyamaka.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Kotleras: Mahayana Buddhism.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Kotleras: The pursuit of understanding, the process of discovery, and having a positive influence through sharing new things or new ways of looking at old things.
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Kotleras: Both.
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Kotleras: Buddhist reincarnation.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Kotleras: I make of it what I can.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Kotleras: This is too complicated and context-dependent to explain.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1). November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1)’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1)’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1)’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Reuven Kotleras on Views, Life, and Love (1) [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kotleras-1.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
The 2024 International Conference on Men and Families will be held in Toronto from September 26-28, addressing critical issues facing boys and men. Topics include father involvement, suicide, mental health, and legal biases. With three keynote addresses and over 50 presentations from more than 10 countries, the event aims to raise awareness and promote programs for an overlooked population. Hosted by the International Families Alliance and sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Men and Families, it’s open to the public online and in person. Dr. Susan Chuang is a Professor at the University of Guelph and the conference organizer.
Keywords: expanding mental health understanding, integrating lived experiences, International Conference on Men and Families, issues related to boys and men, social relationships and mental health, trauma in children, victimization and barriers faced.
Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there’s the International Conference on Men and Families in Toronto, from September 26th to 28th, at the Holiday Inn Downtown Centre. What brings you to this particular conference? Is there a specific theme to which people should be paying attention this year?
Dr. Susan Chuang: I’m speaking today because this three-day conference focuses on issues related to boys and men and their social relationships. These issues receive little attention, whether in the media, public discourse, or even academia, especially regarding topics like victimization and the challenges and barriers they face.
Issues of men and victimization often receive minimal attention and this makes it difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of mental health, which is both a human and gender issue. Whether it’s related to violence, family violence, or situations where boys and men may be victims or perpetrators, it’s essential to have a more nuanced understanding of the complexities and dynamics involved.
This year’s conference isn’t just about discussing families and communities. We’re also exploring other factors that may contribute to men’s mental health and the impact on their various relationships such as childhood experiences of trauma. This year’s focus is more on a life-course approach, examining the experiences of boys and men and how these experiences shape their lives.
Jacobsen: Young, racialized males tend to make up a significant portion of homicide victims in Toronto. The suicide rate for men in Canada is also three times higher than that for women, especially in terms of completion.
Are there particular workshops addressing these issues? Are there presentations exploring the challenges faced by these specific demographics of men and young men?
Chuang: The conference is designed to unite people and provide different perspectives on these issues. Attendees will gain new insights because, as we know, no one has all the answers. People are not only learning for their work, whether it be research or programs, but they’re also gaining a better understanding of these topics from different viewpoints.
It’s important to hear from experts who can help us implement the latest research. For instance, this year, we have presenters who discuss their research while others present a compilation of studies (meta-analyses which systematically review numerous research articles), while others present data on numerous countries.
This approach allows us to identify common patterns and themes that may only sometimes be apparent. Often, we only realize these patterns anecdotally, but having a broader view across different studies helps us better understand the experiences of boys and men.
There’s also a significant topic that people often overlook: trauma in children. For instance, one in five children may experience some form of family abuse, and we need to understand how these children grow up and the impact it has on them as adults.
If we don’t understand those life experiences, how do we deal with these issues now, and how do we figure out ways to move forward? For instance, if people in the audience are presenting lived experiences, we hear the devastation, such as in cases of false allegations, right?
But it’s not just about complaining or criticizing the system; it’s more about, ‘How did I deal with it? How did I manage to pull myself out of it?’ Everyone is learning something valuable from those experiences. So, it’s people with lived experiences and service providers, lawyers, and family mediators—what are they doing to help create stronger communities and better lives?
This particular topic, social relationships and related issues, was chosen because it is so broad in relevance. While social relationships could encompass many topics, we wanted to narrow the focus to make the discussions more in-depth to help us operationalize the issues.
What’s critical about this year’s theme is its evolution from previous years. In 2022, we explicitly focused on the victimization of boys and men. The second year also covered abuse, exploring whether boys and men were perpetrators or victims—often, the relationships were bidirectional, with 53% reporting that both parties were engaged in a form of abuse against the other. This year, we focused more on mental health and social relationships.
When you listen to the data, you hear the complexities and interconnectedness among mental health, social relationships, and community dynamics. You hear that theme over and over again—the bottom line is that mental health impacts all aspects of life, including social relationships. Moving forward, we need to build greater awareness. How can you effectively deal with the issue if you don’t understand it?
I’m a professor and researcher, but I always advocate for integrating lived experiences into academic work. We need to make our research more relevant and applied rather than simply publishing it for a limited academic audience. For instance, if 100 people read it, fine but what does that mean in practice? How do we make research more meaningful and relevant for the community?
One of the benefits of this conference is that because we’re focused on a narrower topic, there’s greater collaboration. Since 2022, we’ve seen more international collaborations develop, and now we’re working across disciplines and professions to apply these findings globally. Other countries are doing remarkable things—how can we use those lessons here?
Jacobsen: What issues have speakers noted where significant changes can be made to improve the mental health of boys and men? Are there areas where we don’t have treatments or answers yet?
Chuang: If you look at this year’s program, it’s about expanding our understanding of lived experiences and focusing on integrating that into mental health treatment and research. We need a more connected approach to addressing these challenges.
But it’s the estrangement, the loss of contact between fathers and their children, and extended families with their children—that’s one of the critical issues we’re learning about today. The goal is also to understand how the legal system is being utilized and how it may be causing harm to families. Gatekeeping has played a role in that. It’s more about the difficulties fathers face and why some may feel driven to take their own lives.
Jacobsen: That’s right. One of the issues I’m most in contact with is parental alienation, and there are some aspects I’m particularly excited about exploring.
Jacobsen: Which sessions are you most excited about?
Chuang: It’s interesting to look at the research and services available, especially regarding interviewing children and how they’re handled in these complex situations. The training sessions are also exciting as delegates can “take it home” and use immediately in their personal and professional lives. I’ll send you the link to the session schedule—obviously, you’re busy, but you’ll have some time to pull it up when you can.
Jacobsen: Take care.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families. November 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Susan Chuang on the 2024 International Conference on Men and Families [Internet]. 2024 Nov; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/chuang.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*Authorship permission granted to Havemayer by Mostepan.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Vadym Mostepan, 38, lives in Kyiv, Ukraine, with his wife and 10-year-old son. An avid traveler and hiker, he recounts the ongoing war with Russia, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and escalated into a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. Early that morning, Kyiv was bombarded with missile attacks, leading to explosions and chaos. Mostepan relocated his family to western Ukraine for safety, returning to help build fortifications and defend Kyiv. United efforts prevented Russian forces from capturing the city. Though some regions were liberated, fighting continues in eastern Ukraine, with Russia still pursuing its ambitions.
My name is Vadym Mostepan. I am 38 years old. I live in Kyiv, Ukraine. I am married and have a 10-year-old son. One of my hobbies is traveling, I like to go hiking in the mountains.
About the war.
The war started back in 2014. Back then, Russia illegally annexed the Ukrainian republic of Crimea and invaded the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. But the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine from three directions, including from the north to the city of Kyiv, where I live, gained the most publicity in the world.
Russia planned to capture all of Ukraine in a few days, overthrow the legitimate government in Ukraine, destroy and enslave Ukrainians who defended the independence of their country. But the Russians did not succeed.
The full-scale invasion began around 5 a.m. on February 24, 2022, with a massive missile attack on airfields, military units, and other important Ukrainian facilities.
That day, my family woke up to loud explosions. The wife and child were very frightened. From the windows of our apartment, which is located on the 11th floor, thick black smoke was clearly visible in different parts of the city.
The next day, we moved to a safer place in the other end of the city, and a few weeks later I took the family to relatives in western Ukraine (500 km from Kyiv), where they stayed for several months. And I returned to Kyiv on the same day.
During the Russian offensive on Kyiv, I, along with other residents of Kyiv, helped the military build fortifications around Kyiv for several months. They dug trenches and dugouts, etc. All the people were united and preparing for street fights in the city. But still, they managed to prevent the Russians from entering Kyiv and knock them all out from the outskirts of the capital.
These were not simple times. Many civilized countries sided with Ukraine. And in that difficult time, my friends from abroad Jaime Alfonso Flores and Juho Kärenlampi supported me, for which I am infinitely grateful.
So far, the Russians have been expelled from several regions of Ukraine, but the Russians still continue to wage war in the east of Ukraine and have not given up their desire to seize all of Ukraine and subjugate it to themselves.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Havemayer, J. (2024, November 22). ‘Accounts by Ukrainian Friends’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): HAVEMAYER, J. Accounts by Ukrainian Friends’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Havemayer, Jaime. “On High-Range Test Construction 24: Scott Jacobsen.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/havemayer-ukrainian-friends.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Amrit Birring, president of the Freedom Party of BC, discusses his political focus on improving education standards, curbing drug use in schools, and opposing SOGI 123, which he sees as harmful to students.
Keywords: accountability in government, activism in legislature, BC healthcare challenges, COVID control measures, education system improvement, SOGI 123 curriculum removal, transparency in public policy.
On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Amrit Birring, Leader of the Freedom Party of BC. What inspired you to make this party your focus for political action?
Amrit Birring: I have some background from 2021, when I ran for federal MP elections. In 2022, I also ran for city mayor, founding a city party. In 2023, we formed a provincial party, the Freedom Party of BC, which began a year and a half ago.
The primary reason for forming the party is that Canada, BC, and our city face significant challenges. The education system is underperforming, the healthcare system is breaking down, and housing affordability is a crisis. Additionally, inflation is widespread. Much of this results from the incompetence of successive governments, leading to a constant deterioration of conditions. As of now, the situation has reached a critical point.
Observing all of this, I felt compelled to enter politics for the country’s and our children’s future. Although my family has no political background, these pressing issues led me here.
Jacobsen: You have three top priorities: curbing drug use in schools, improving academic standards in K-12 education, and addressing the shortage of doctors, nurses, engineers, and tradespeople. Do you have a particular rank order for these priorities, or do you see them as a package to tackle together?
Birring: These priorities form a comprehensive package to improve our society. Our long-term vision is to strengthen our foundation, which is the education system. With strong academic standards, we avoid perpetuating these problems in the long run.
In addition to education, there’s the issue of SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) being taught in schools. Parents overwhelmingly oppose this, yet the government insists on keeping it. Our party has made this a significant issue, as it unites parents. The government tends to divide and conquer, but this issue affects all parents equally. We’ve engaged with the Surrey School Board and the BC Ministry of Education and held protests at elementary schools. The more we investigate, the clearer it becomes that this agenda is being pushed by forces beyond the government, which acts more like a puppet. It seems that undemocratic forces are controlling our democracy.
We are determined to remove this from schools as our first victory, making it our priority. It’s about children’s curriculum and resisting the forces trying to impose their will on us. Achieving this would be a huge moral victory.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss the three other priorities, including parties we align with and those we disagree with. Did you mention raising K-12 academic standards?
Birring: Academic standards are crucial because, with them, our children will be competitive and able to fill the many jobs we have in the country. But SOGI impacts students immediately. If they experience gender confusion, it weakens their personality, and nothing else will work effectively.
Jacobsen: What objections do other parties raise in response to your concerns?
Birring: In a debate I participated in against the BC NDP, they claimed SOGI 123 is a teaching resource introduced due to historical injustices to the LGBTQ community, aiming to promote inclusion. They argue it’s age-appropriate, and teachers use discretion in deciding what to teach. However, we disagree with all of these points.
Firstly, the claim that education is inclusive is misleading. By including the small LGBTQ population, they have excluded over 99% of parents from the decision-making process. The curriculum published in schools covers academic subjects like math and science, not this. Teaching this content without parental consent is unacceptable.
Secondly, the claim that it’s age-appropriate is false. There are objectionable books in school libraries showing explicit content, like depictions of oral sex between boys or girls in bed together. There’s no record of which teacher shows what to which child. We are expected to trust teachers, but we can’t. Special LGBTQ teachers have been hired to deliver this content, and their funding is tied to increasing the number of children who identify as LGBTQ.
We’ve heard from many concerned parents and students, even though they don’t publicly speak out. For instance, Sullivan Heights Secondary School in Surrey has 18 students who identify as furry, which refers to students who identify as animals like cats and dogs.
It’s a popular term in schools now. So, it’s not just about males identifying as females or vice versa. Students can identify as anything, even objects. In this case, those 18 students identify as animals. There’s no way to justify whose inclusion this is for or whose safety it’s for. It just doesn’t make sense. We don’t buy into what the government is claiming. It’s just a cover to push this harmful agenda.
Jacobsen: You also have objections to COVID policies and climate change. Can you explain that in more detail?
Birring: Yes, let’s start with COVID. It was a lung virus, but there was a global agenda to control the population once it hit. They used lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing to create fear. Then, they linked our basic privileges to a digital ID. Without it, you couldn’t go to the gym or fly. These IDs were tied to COVID-19 vaccinations.
This entire operation seemed pre-planned, and they broke many established rules. For example, in medicine, you can’t force treatment on anyone. Still, they effectively force people by linking basic rights to vaccinations. They now claim they never forced anyone, but tying travel and other freedoms to the vaccine is coercion.
From a medical perspective, the restrictions didn’t make sense either. For a lung virus, the best treatment is breathing fresh air, yet they lock people inside and force masks. Trusted medicines like Ivermectin were banned, and any doctor who opposed the narrative had their licenses revoked. They silenced dissent on social media unless it aligned with the government’s stance, and the constant media propaganda pushed daily case numbers to spread fear.
Jacobsen: Nowhere during the pandemic did the government scare people like this before. They created fear to make people psychologically ready for forced vaccinations, lockdowns, masks, and digital IDs, which control their lives. Can you expand on that?
Birring: Yes, exactly. It violated medical principles and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ironically, people didn’t start dying in large numbers until after the vaccines arrived, especially older individuals locked down in nursing homes. Vaccines typically take 8-10 years to develop. Still, this one was ready in just eight months, and every country managed to create the same vaccine. That doesn’t usually happen.
This vaccine uses mRNA technology, which is different from traditional vaccines. A typical vaccine introduces a small dose of the virus to help the body create antibodies. But this was a new technology. Normally, vaccine companies are held liable for side effects, but governments gave them exemptions. There was even an exemption for 60 years, preventing the release of side effect data. Still, public backlash forced them to release it. So, from many perspectives, it looks like a giant fraud.
I checked Statistics Canada’s data, and there’s a flat line when you compare the number of deaths from 2015 to 2022. This means the number of deaths was the same before, during, and after COVID-19. They claim it killed many people, but their data do not support that. What happened is that older people, who typically die from lung disease or flu, died with COVID instead, which is just another viral infection.
Another consequence of the COVID lockdowns was the disruption of global supply chains. This caused permanent supply shortages, leading to inflation that we still see today. This was another deliberate outcome of the pandemic, as the global supply network will never return to full capacity, keeping inflation permanent. It was all part of the larger agenda.
One type of inflation is caused by printing more money, which increasing interest rates can control. But there’s another type of inflation caused by a shortage of supply. When supply is limited, and demand remains, prices drive up permanently. This leads to financial pain and makes people poorer.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on how COVID measures contributed to this?
Birring: During COVID, many small businesses, which already operated on tight margins, were forced to shut down permanently. Even businesses open for generations, like family-owned restaurants, couldn’t survive. What replaced them? Big corporations like Walmart and Costco. This is another example of power shifting from the people to large corporations.
We believe COVID was used as an agenda to control society and oppose the government’s actions during that time. That’s why we don’t believe in the government’s narrative.
Jacobsen: When you present these views in debates or on social media, how do people generally respond within the British Columbia political space?
Birring: When a new party with strong views emerges, established powers try to make them invisible. In our case, we’ve been excluded from forums. For example, the Surrey Board of Trade organized a debate, but we weren’t invited despite being a Surrey-based party. There’s an effort to refrain from engaging with us.
I had one opportunity to debate at Kwantlen Polytechnic University with an NDP candidate. Though they didn’t ask about COVID-19, we did discuss climate change. People are often shocked initially because they’ve bought into the government’s narrative. But when I explain things, most people agree with our perspective. Even in personal conversations, people often admit that they felt coerced during the pandemic, though the official narrative still dominates.
When it comes to SOGI, the same pattern applies. No one dared to speak out against it until we started organizing anti-SOGI rallies and calling it out openly.
Now, it has become more acceptable, and even the Conservative Party of BC claims they will remove it. We continue our activism, normalizing the criticism of such policies. It’s a journey, and we’re still in the early stages. We’ll see what tricks Western interests play as we gain more traction. For now, their tactic is to make us invisible.
Jacobsen: This series is important because it serves as a subjective educational platform where I gather the views of politicians directly from their perspectives. While I acknowledge my biases, this series isn’t like a critical national news story where people are expected to push back. It’s more of an educational presentation of a candidate’s views. I appreciate you sharing your full perspective, especially given the challenges of entering a political space where established parties dominate. You may present ideas that some people find highly objectionable for various reasons, whether evidence-based or ideological. Where do you find the least pushback regarding your political positions? When you talk to people on the street and introduce yourself as the leader of the Freedom Party of BC, what issues resonate most with them?
Birring: People are most receptive to the removal of SOGI 123. BC has 93 seats for this election, but we’re fielding candidates in only five ridings. We only claim to solve some problems, as we expect to be in opposition. Our main focus is SOGI 123 because it affects all parents, and no one else is addressing it. While other parties discuss housing and healthcare, they offer no real solutions—just promises. In the ridings we’re contesting, around 90% of people support us in wanting SOGI 123 removed from schools, as it has no place there. However, about 10% of people believe it’s necessary for inclusion and don’t delve into the safety concerns—they trust the government’s narrative.
Jacobsen: We’re running out of time, so I’ll ask a final question. What do you hope to achieve with your political campaign, and do you have any closing thoughts?
Birring: We hope to send a few candidates to the legislature. Our role would be to present facts, figures, and realistic points on our constituents’ issues. The legislature’s discussions often need more relevance to people’s real concerns. They create issues to debate and pass bills. For example, sometimes, they broadcast parliamentary proceedings, but only few common people pay attention to what’s happening.
That’s because the business conducted in parliament often has nothing to do with the people it’s meant to serve. In theory, parliament exists for the people, but that’s different from how it currently operates. We plan to raise issues that genuinely affect people and conduct thorough research. As MLAs, we’ll have staff and time to investigate issues, ensuring transparency on where the money goes so the government can no longer deceive the public and is forced to do the right thing.
Our main goal is to bring activism to the legislature. Becoming an MLA isn’t the end—it’s a means to implement our ideas and expose government actions that benefit vested interests rather than the people. The ultimate objective is to make the government accountable to the public.
Democracy is a two-way street. Unless people participate, the government will cater to those who control and fund it. We must reclaim democracy by engaging with MLAs, asking critical questions, and holding them accountable for their promises. We want to empower people to think critically, probe deeper, and ensure that the government is more accountable in the long term and that our lives improve.
Jacobsen: Excellent. Amrit, thank you for your time and participation in the series today. I appreciate it.
Birring: Thanks, Scott. I hope you found it useful, and thanks for doing this.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, November 22). ‘On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-3.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (November 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-3.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-3.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “On Politics in Canada 3: Amrit Birring, Freedom Party of BC.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-3.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
This Week’s Dispatch is Here
This week’s Unbelief Brief provides updates on Islamism and Islamic intolerance in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.
In Pakistan: extrajudicial violence in reaction to online blasphemy accusations is becoming increasingly more widespread. “Vigilante groups,” made up of volunteers have been wildly successful in “scour[ing] the internet” in search of blasphemy offenders, even going as far as to entrap innocent people into committing blasphemy. This explains the disproportionate number of online blasphemy cases coming out of Pakistan and also serves as a potent example of how legal culture reinforces and encourages vigilante action in countries like Pakistan where mob lynchings of suspected blasphemers are common. These vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to bring blasphemy crimes to the attention of authorities who may otherwise not detect them— frequently leading to formal death sentences. Read more about the phenomenon here.
In Afghanistan, it seems the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has gotten too extreme, even for some Taliban officials. Last week, it was reported that the Taliban had opted to ban “images of all living beings” from being published in Afghanistan in accordance with their reading of Islamic law. It now appears that some Taliban ministers are opposed to this rule on the grounds that it would be “detrimental to the Taliban’s interests.” The power struggle may have something to do with the Taliban reportedly seeking to move away from state TV and transition backwards to radio—negatively affecting certain Taliban officials who enjoyed the notoriety they achieved via television appearances. Even in a system claiming to be wholly transcendent and transfixed on spiritual concerns above all else, human pettiness is so often revealed as the true motivator of actions.
And lastly, in Iran: much focus has been given in this newsletter to the regime’s treatment of political dissidents, its treatment of women who refuse to adhere to repressive “modesty” guidelines, and the increasing brutality of its enforcement of its already-draconian laws. It is easy in this sea of authoritarianism to forget that the regime is also still busy oppressing religious minorities, especially those of the Baha’i faith. We’ve just gotten a reminder of this, though, in the sentencing of 10 Baha’i women to various terms of imprisonment totaling 90 years altogether for “educational and propaganda activities against the sacred Islamic law.” It’s the same playbook for any authoritarian system: to strangle the minds of its subjects—and it’s one the Islamic Republic has been deploying against the Baha’is for more than 40 years.
EXMNA Updates
EXMNA is co-presenting a powerful panel on extrajudicial killings driven by anti-apostasy and anti-blasphemy laws. Hear from advocates, activists, and survivors on what UN Member States can do to protect those at risk. Free tickets available—register now!
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Your Weekly Dispatch is Here
Unbelief Brief examines a rare resolution to a new blasphemy case in Pakistan and the ever increasing paranoia of the Taliban.
EXMNA Updates: EXMNA, alongside the American Humanist Association and Jubilee Campaign, is hosting a panel on preventing extrajudicial killings fueled by anti-apostasy and anti-blasphemy laws, featuring the voices of advocates, activists, and survivors.
Unbelief Brief
In Pakistan, a two-month-old blasphemy case has been resolved with a relatively rare positive result for the accused. Two sisters, Saima and Sonia, had previously been accused of damaging and desecrating “sacred writings,” allegations they both denied. Just last week, both were acquitted of the “crime.” While this must surely come as a relief to them, the sad reality is that in Pakistan, the threat of vigilante violence hangs over accused blasphemers’ heads just as much, if not more than, the threat of legal reprisal. Members of an angry mob don’t often care about legal exonerations such as these. The sisters will likely have to take additional precautions to keep themselves safe from here on.
Indeed, the problem of extrajudicial violence against blasphemy suspects is so pervasive in Pakistan that it is now an act that police engage in as well. Previous editions of this newsletter have discussed the police killing of a Pakistani doctor accused of blasphemy and its subsequent coverup, as well as some of the protests that have followed. Those protests seem to have ballooned—enough to trigger far-right counter-protests, which turned violent in Karachi over the weekend as police deployed tear gas to stop members of the militant Islamist Tehreek-e-Labbaik (TLP) party from breaking through security barricades. The TLP protestors reportedly “hurled rocks” at officers and burned a police vehicle—all this to stop the protest of an extrajudicial killing. In the Islamist worldview, immediate death is simply the appropriate punishment for a blasphemer, and the murderer is a righteous man to be celebrated. There are plenty of religious sources to make them confident in this view: it is what Islam demands of its adherents.
Finally, in Afghanistan, it seems that for the Taliban it was not enough to totally ban women from appearing in public: the extremity of their religious vision must encompass every sphere of life. Their latest prescription to make this a reality: a total ban on “images of all living things.” But not to worry! The Taliban will not sacrifice their famously nonviolent posture, and they have assured us that “coercion has no place in the implementation of the law,” which is “only advice” (despite also being law which “applies to everyone”).
EXMNA Updates
EXMNA, in collaboration with the American Humanist Association and Jubilee Campaign, presents a powerful panel on extrajudicial killings driven by anti-apostasy and anti-blasphemy laws. Hear from advocates, activists, and survivors on what UN Member States can do to protect those at risk. Tickets are free—register now!
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Welcome Back to Dissent Dispatch
This week’s Unbelief Brief examines the rescue of a Yazidi woman trafficked to Gaza, Bibles in Oklahoma public schools and atheists outnumbering theists in the UK.
EXMNA Insights looks at the uncomfortable truth of Islamic sex slavery.
The Unbelief Brief
A Yazidi woman who was kidnapped more than 10 years ago by ISIS has been freed in a “complex operation coordinated between Israel, the United States, and other international actors,” according to the Israeli military and confirmed by the US and Iraq. Enslaved at the age of 11, Fawzia Amin Sido, was trafficked to Gaza where she spent a decade in captivity. It is an intersection of two of the Islamic State’s most heinous acts: committing genocide against the Yazidis in Iraq and also women who they treat with such cruelty as to be less than human in the militant zealots’ minds. More on the topic in EXMNA Insights below.
Back in the United States, Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters has made clear his intent for the education system in the state: “Every teacher, every classroom in the state, will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible.” The flouting of the First Amendment and the principle of church-state separation enshrined therein is so flagrant and shameless as to almost be comical. The bow that wraps this all together is the recent revelation that the state put out a bid order for 55,000 classroom Bibles, the description for which mirrors exactly the Bibles that former president Trump has endorsed, which are priced at upwards of $60USD. There is some consolation in the likelihood that no honest court will allow this to go through, but this is nevertheless the kind of theocratic mindset that still reigns among some very high-ranking Republican elected officials in the US.
Finally: a new and extensive study has found that, for the first time in history, atheists outnumber theists in the UK. The findings are from Explaining Atheism, a years-long project “led by Queen’s University Belfast” in cooperation with several other universities in the UK and Australia. Apart from illuminating this rather earth-shattering development in the UK, the project aims to elucidate the causes and manifestations of the increasing prevalence of atheism around the world. Checking it out is well worth your time: here.
EXMNA Insights
Islamic scriptures present a troubling legacy regarding slavery, particularly sexual slavery. One of the most controversial concepts is “what the right hand possesses,” referring to captives of war, including women, taken as slaves. The Qur’an, in multiple verses, sanctions this practice. For instance, Qur’an 33:50 references: “… those whom your right hands possess,” permitting sexual relations with female captives. Similarly, Surah Al-Mu’minun (23:5-6) and Surah Al-Maarij (70:29-30) both repeat exemptions regarding moral norms of chastity for enslaved women.
This practice is further reinforced in the Hadith. In Sahih Muslim (3371), Muhammad gave his approval for his companions to have sexual relations with female captives during military campaigns (Sahih Muslim 8:3432,Qur’an 4:24). Such accounts elucidate moral and ethical concerns about how Islam viewed the humanity of enslaved women, especially given that female slaves do not have the right to deny sexual intercourse with their captors.
Muhammad himself owned slaves, including Maria al-Qibtiyya and Rayhana bint Zayd. Maria, a coptic Egyptian slave gifted to him, was granted freedom only after bearing Muhammad’s son Ibrahim, who later died in infancy. Rayhana was captured during the campaign against the Banu Qurayza tribe and later became one of his concubines.
In more recent times, the continuation of this legacy is evidenced by reports of wealthy Muslims, including monarchs, keeping slave women. For example, the Saudi royal family and other Gulf monarchs were known to have kept concubines and domestic slaves well into the mid-20th century. However, these are not the only modern examples of religiously sanctioned slavery. Slavery remains a disturbing practice even today, long after it was abolished in other parts of the world. In 1981, Mauritania became the last nation in the world to outlaw slavery, yet the Haratine ethnic minority, who historically made up the majority population of slaves in the country, remain as bonded laborers, a ‘proximate form of slavery’. Even more recently, ISIS and Boko Haramengaged in the widespread kidnapping of women and girls for the purposes of sexual slavery.
Muslim apologists often argue that Islamic slavery was more “humane” than the Western transatlantic slave trade, pointing to rules about treating slaves with dignity and allowing them rights such as manumission. However, in addition to ignoring the fundamental violation of human dignity inherent in slavery itself, it whitewashes the horrors of the Islamic slave trade. While it is true that unlike the transatlantic slave trade, slavery in the Muslim world was not explicitly racist, its primary victims were still sub-saharan Africans. Whether in the Islamic world or the West, slavery is an abhorrent and indefensible practice; any system, religious or cultural, that supports or condones it simply illustrates its own moral desolation.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
A seasoned Musician (Vocals, Guitar and Piano), Filmmaker, and Actor, J.D. Mata has composed 100 songs and performed 100 shows and venues throughout. He has been a regular at the legendary “Whisky a Go Go,” where he has wooed audiences with his original shamanistic musical performances. He has written and directed nerous feature films, web series, and music videos. J.D. has also appeared in various national T.V. commercials and shows. Memorable appearances are TRUE BLOOD (HBO) as Tio Luca, THE UPS Store National television commercial, and the lead in the Lil Wayne music video, HOW TO LOVE, with over 129 million views. As a MOHAWK MEDICINE MAN, J.D. also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. J.D. co-starred, performed and wrote the music for the original world premiere play, AN ENEMY of the PUEBLO — by one of today’s preeminent Chicana writers, Josefina Lopez! This is J.D.’s third Fringe; last year, he wrote, directed and starred in the Fringe Encore Performance award-winning “A Night at the Chicano Rock Opera.” He is in season 2 of his NEW YouTube series, ROCK god! J.D. is a native of McAllen, Texas and resides in North Hollywood, California. He discusses: parenting for Selana, the famed late Tejano talent.
Keywords: Abraham Quintanilla, American dream, entrepreneurial spirit, faith, family, father figure, hard work, parenting, Selena’s success, work ethic.
On Tejano Music 6: Selena’s Father
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s begin with a brief introduction to Selena, a significant figure in Tejano music who tragically passed away at a young age. Can you tell us about her upbringing, particularly her father’s role? What are some of the stories surrounding her childhood? To provide context, how did her father, Abraham Quintanilla, parent her? How did his approach differ from others? And how do families recognize exceptional talent in young people who can express it meaningfully?
J.D. Mata: My perspective is based on things I’ve read and heard and my intuition. By intuition, I mean as a Mexican-American who grew up with a father who was a musician. For the sake of conversation, let’s imagine I’m Selena in this story, and I’ll share from the child’s perspective—whether that’s Selena or her brother, AB. I want to discuss Abraham Quintanilla, her father, because he reminds me a lot of my father, a musician. Let me begin by acknowledging that this is an exciting approach.
Based on what I’ve learned, it’s well-known that Abraham Quintanilla, Selena’s father, was a musician who had a band called Los Dinos in his younger years. He was a talented musician and served in the military, which is how he met his wife, Marcella. They fell in love and got married.
Their first child was Suzette, who went on to play drums in Selena’s band. Then, they had their son, AB Quintanilla III, followed by Selena. Because Abraham was a musician himself, he recognized his children’s musical talents early on.
He especially recognized Selena’s remarkable singing voice. When it comes to talent, you either have it or you don’t, and Selena certainly did. Abraham noticed that from a young age. Being a musician, he wanted to live his dreams through his children’s success. He believed that if anyone could guide and advocate for his daughter, it should be him.
It’s similar to how I would feel if I had a child with a talent for singing or acting. Although I don’t have children, I would certainly advocate for them if I did. Who better to steer that ship than a dedicated parent? To get to the point, Abraham was their mentor and music guru, not just their father.
He was the manager, booking agent, band founder, and more. One thing Abraham had, which many artists lack—and something I’ve struggled with but am improving on—is that he was a talented musician and a sharp businessman. After all, it’s called show business for a reason. Abraham Quintanilla deserves much credit for that.
I’m a huge fan and an advocate. I look at it from an academic or intellectual point of view. Without Abraham Quintanilla, there is no Selena because he was such a fierce and astute advocate for his kids. That’s why they made it. It would help if you had an intense, loyal advocate who’s there for you through thick and thin, and they indeed went through many trials and tribulations. Not only was he their manager, but he was also their father. You talk about a “papa bear,” and that’s what he was. He encouraged his kids to pursue music as a career, and that became his career, too.
He shifted from being a restaurant owner to investing in their music career, and the band even played at the family restaurant. Essentially, he was an entrepreneur. Being in the music field, especially in this capitalistic society, you must be an entrepreneur. You’re constantly persuading people to buy your product, and that’s precisely what he did—he convinced the public to buy Selena’s music. That’s capitalism 101: the exchange of goods and services without government interference, just one citizen persuading another to invest in their product. Abraham was selling Selena’s records and knew how to do it well.
When it came to the music itself, he was tough. Even though his kids loved music, he pushed them hard. He understood that talent isn’t enough—you must nurture it. Like watering a plant, you have to practice and perfect your craft. He knew that, as a musician himself. He ensured his kids rehearsed daily, even though they sometimes hated it. But that’s why they became so good. They weren’t just playing the same small, junky gigs everyone else was; they were mastering their craft.
If you want to discuss an American success story, look at Selena and her family. That is the essence of the American dream—coming from humble beginnings and achieving greatness through hard work. I don’t think that’s emphasized enough, how they’re a true American success story. Selena became musically successful, but it was only possible because her father was a genius—not just as a music manager or producer, but as an advocate for their brand. He was incredibly astute and a hard worker. He would even drive the bus to get them from gig to gig.
I know how tough that is because I’m on tour now. It’s brutal. You play the show, wake up the next day and drive to the following location. It’s exhausting—driving six to eight hours to the next gig, sometimes with your bus breaking down. That’s the grind they went through.
So not only was Abraham Quintanilla an incredible musician, manager, and mentor, but he was also a mechanic. When the bus broke down, he had to fix it. On top of all that, he was an exceptional father. Some might argue about how great he was, considering that Selena missed out on typical teenage experiences like prom or football games. But sometimes, success demands sacrifice, and that’s what their journey requires. Had Selena not been tragically killed, she was on her way to becoming an even bigger icon.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. We can see that in Selena’s entrepreneurial spirit. She had opened her clothing boutique, and there were rumours that she was planning to leave the band to focus on her boutique. Whether or not that’s true, the point is that she was set to become a millionaire as a fashion designer. And where did she get her entrepreneurial spirit? From her father.
We also must remember her mother, Marcella. Behind every successful man, there’s a strong woman. Marcella held the family together. While much of this is based on intuition, it’s clear that the strength of their family came from love. When you love your family, you support them, and I’m sure Abraham and Marcella were a strong team.
I’m presenting a perspective I have yet to see or hear elsewhere. It could be because I see the world differently as an artist and an entrepreneur. I’ve been a Tejano artist, and my father reminds me of Abraham Quintanilla. So, I bring a unique perspective to this conversation.
I’ve never met Abraham Quintanilla, though I’d love to. What I’m sharing is based on what I’ve read and my intuition as a Mexican-American and as the son of a musician who advocated for me and nurtured my talents. In some ways, I see Abraham as a father figure, even though we’ve never met. If we did, we’d look each other in the eye and understand one another immediately.
Abraham has been criticized for “living off his daughter’s name,” but I don’t see it that way. He’s simply keeping the record straight about what happened to Selena and preserving her legacy. Selena is known worldwide today because her father was astute enough to keep the rights to the first movie about her life. He had the vision to ensure her story was told correctly, understanding Selena’s brilliance, genius, and sacrifice and the entire family. He may face criticism, but Abraham knew people needed to hear Selena’s story. He was smart enough to ensure they heard it from the family rather than from speculative sources.
And I’m sure it was excruciating for him to relive all those memories and tell the story through the movie. Even today, it must still be unbearable for him. But despite the pain, he continues because of his deep love, passion, and devotion—to Selena, the brand, the craft, and the family. He has no choice but to carry on. By the way, Suzette is the older sister and continues to be involved. They’ve created a museum. They played a role in ensuring the Selena series was as accurate as possible.
Abraham Quintanilla he’s the root of it all. He’s the strong, traditional Mexican figure at the foundation of the massive “Selena tree” that has grown to reach the entire world. Without him, there would be nothing. That’s what I have to say about his role.
Are there any other questions related to that? For example, you asked about the marriage between Abraham and Marcella and what their love was like. It’s a love story, a beautiful one. The proof is in the fact that they’re still married. How often do you hear about families torn apart by tragedy like theirs? And then consider the music business—it’s brutal, it tears people apart. Yet, they stayed together through it all.
That’s real love. Of course, they’re human, and there must have been conflict, like in any relationship, but they made it through at the end of the day. That’s love. So, to answer your question, when you see them, you can’t help but recognize that their love is strong.
Intuitively, I feel this because my parents stayed together and loved each other deeply. While I’ve never met Abraham and Marcella, and I’m not a psychologist or family therapist, I base my understanding on what I’ve seen in interviews, what I’ve read, and my own experience.
Jacobsen: Were they a product of their generation, where marriages were likelier to stick it out?
Mata: Probably. But they’re also living in a time when many couples from that generation haven’t stayed together. So yes, their generation may have shaped them, but I believe their love would have lasted in any era.
As for your question about how Abraham’s parenting style may have differed between Selena and her siblings, there wasn’t much difference. He seemed consistent based on what I’ve read and observed and my understanding of Mexican culture. It didn’t matter that Selena was the star or the lead singer—he treated them all the same.
He was strict with his rules. There was no drinking or smoking on the bus—not just for his children but also for the musicians. Everyone had to be in bed at a particular time. He had a policy of not interacting much with fans because he believed there needed to be a mystique between the artist and the audience. That mystique would fade if the fans got to know them too well. He enforced that with all of his children, not just Selena.
So he had a policy where you could talk to the fans but weren’t allowed to develop friendships with them to maintain that mystique. And it wasn’t just Selena; all the kids had the same treatment. It’s not that he outright forbade them from attending football games or proms, but the business demands didn’t allow it.
Most of their gigs were on the weekends when all the socializing happened at school. Eventually, Selena had to drop out of school, and she later earned her GED. I’m not sure about AB or Suzette, but I know Selena did it, and she also became an advocate for education. Based on the interviews I’ve read, she never complained about the path her life took. She understood how fortunate she was to be following her dream.
Abraham was equal in how he disciplined and guided all his children. He instilled professionalism in them and maintained their faith as a core part of their upbringing. I don’t want to speculate too much, but I believe they were associated with the Church of the Latter-day Saints, though I could be wrong. What’s clear is that faith was essential to their family, and they were God-fearing people, which Abraham instilled in his children.
By the way, I have a YouTube series called Rock God, and in episode 8, I meet Selena. It’s a fantastic episode where I visit her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. While I’m there, I get hit by a guy on a scooter. I pass out, and while I’m concussed, Selena appears to me. So, if anyone reading this is interested, go to YouTube, search for Rocca JD Mata, and check out episode 8.
I mention this because, in the episode, I made a point of portraying Selena in a way that’s respectful to her faith. In the Seventh-day Adventist tradition, they believe that when people die, they don’t go to heaven right away; instead, they’re “sleeping” until Jesus returns. So, in the episode, Selena wakes up and says, “Oh, I’ve been sleeping,” to stay true to that belief.
Jacobsen: How’s your time looking tonight?
Mata: I’ve got a project I’m working on, so this will probably be it for tonight. Same time, we’ll get back into the groove.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, October 8). On Tejano Music 6: Selena’s Father. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. On Tejano Music 6: Selena’s Father. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Author(s): Dott.ssa in Ort. e Oft., Beatrice Rescazzi
Author(s) Bio: Dott.ssa in Ort. e Oft., Beatrice Rescazzi is the President of the AtlantIQ Society. She has been an optician, orthoptist, eye surgery assistant for years, and teaches computer science in adult courses. She is an autodidact regarding 3D printing construction, 3D printing, electronics, robotics, and more. She has an abiding interest in inventions to help vulnerable people and the environment, astronomy, general science, informatics, space missions, 2D and 3D drawing and design, as well as languages and arts. She has taken part in competitions for design, inventions, and space projects. She is an Esperantist.
Word Count: 1,493
Image Credits: Beatrice Rescazzi.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
The text reflects on political discourse, contrasting Italy’s civil exchanges among friends with the polarized, heated arguments often seen in American politics. The author highlights the importance of respecting differing views, avoiding confirmation bias, and rejecting propaganda. They argue that true democratic engagement requires listening, humility, and the rejection of authoritarian attitudes, even within democratic systems. Ultimately, the text calls for open-mindedness and civil discourse in political conversations.
Keywords: agendas, civil discourse, confirmation bias, democracy, dialogue, differing agendas, ideological superiority, mutual respect, political parties, political polarization, propaganda.
Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse
“Did you watch the debate last night? What do you think?” This is the message a friend sent me a few days ago. In Italy, we have a wide range of political parties, each with different agendas, and our President is a super partes figure who represents all Italians. Even at the local level, candidates belong to various shades of center, right, and left. During the recent elections for Mayor in my city, at a dinner with six friends, we revealed our preferences: it turned out that each of us would vote for a different candidate. During the dinner, we explained the reasons for our choices and compared them with each other’s views. No one raised their voice, except to make a toast, and no one called the other stupid for preferring a different candidate. No one ended a friendship over a different opinion. Rather, the exchange of opinions and points of view, peppered with humorous remarks, is one of the ingredients of my longest-lasting friendships. From the Communist Party to the Far Right, passing through the Center, I count many decades-long friendships. Believe it or not, they are all honest people who work hard and love their family and friends. They are teachers, rehabilitation therapists, doctors, and lawyers. To those who wonder how people from “that party” could ever be considered good people, I reply that it doesn’t matter through which institution you do charity work, or how you try to protect your children, or what ideological motivation you claim for behaving ethically. Similarly, it doesn’t matter what commandment, shamanistic belief, or religious precept you offer as an explanation for your good deeds; what matters to me is that you are a good person. Of course, the opposite is also true: if you are immoral and full of hatred, I don’t care who you are, what you think, or what you believe—you will never be part of my life.
I often talk with foreign people, and once a week, I meet with a diverse group, mostly from the United States and Europe. They are all very nice and kind people, but when the conversation touches on politics, some of them turn into fanatical propagandists. I’m sorry to say that they are almost all Americans. I have no desire to teach lessons from another continent or criticize another country—neither I nor Italy are remotely perfect. I just want to express my concern and sadness for a great and wonderful country that, according to a historical view, should represent Democracy at its best. But I won’t invite people to join some utopian circle where we all hold hands: it’s clear that these kinds of arguments haven’t worked. Unfortunately, I notice that in the United States, extreme political polarization has turned into an impenetrable wall of incommunicability. Political discussions are marked by heated tones and an “us vs. them” mentality. This phenomenon isn’t limited to the media or social networks; it also pervades everyday conversations.
When I listen to American news, I can see the deep “Grand Canyon” between Democratic and Republican channels, each with its own interpretation of the world, each with its obvious, blatant propaganda, in defiance of the true purpose of an informative and objective newscast. The dramatic background music often accompanies what is more of a news show, and it sometimes ends with a sweet note of a puppy or a trivial civil act between citizens, celebrated as a rare and miraculous event—often in place of important news covered by other foreign newscasts. No one likes to think of themselves as a victim of propaganda, which is why it’s so hard to break what seems like a curse without an antidote.
The American friends I talk to often seem almost proud of having nothing to do with “them,” meaning those stupid and evil people who vote differently. The “different” is thus often accepted only when it’s externally different, but not when their thoughts differ—in that case, they can be humiliated, insulted, and excluded. There is a lack of willingness to understand the point of view of the other half of the population, their own fellow citizens. At this point, I must add the usual disclaimer that I am generalizing, that not everyone is like this, that it can happen in other countries too, that a circle is round, and other banalities that some people like to nitpick over instead of grasping the point of the discussion. When the ability to listen to different opinions disappears, all you do is make your brain lazy and lock it inside a prison made of confirmation bias. It’s a very comfortable prison, where you never feel offended, never challenged, and always feel right—in fact, morally and intellectually superior. Others begin to seem like cruel and stupid enemies who want to destroy everything, to the point that justifying their physical elimination no longer seems like a big problem. In fact, people start wishing death upon others lightly. Where have we seen this process before? Of course, in wars and dictatorships.
So, is there an antidote? I don’t know what could work, I’ll tell you what I think. In my opinion, it is extremely important to recognize that your political side is just like the other side. Yes, I’m sorry to shock you, but it’s true: your party is just like the other party. Not only that, but no one is immune from propaganda.
Defending candidates to the hilt is absurd: they are not your friends, and in reality, you don’t know them at all. All you see of them are photons on a screen. You might get the impression that one is better than the other, but you must have the humility to recognize that you could be wrong, even by a lot.
Changing your mind in light of new data is a sign of intelligence, not a betrayal of an entity you must stay loyal to for life. If you meet someone who thinks differently from you, ask why they think differently and listen. And don’t listen to argue back; listen to understand.
You are not a candidate; you are an ordinary citizen. Your duty as a citizen is to gather as much information as possible from different sources to form your own opinion. It is not to join a cult and repeat everything they say.
Don’t dress yourself in the logos and political symbols of one side or the other; forget about the flags—you are not a billboard for a political party. Have more respect for your own complexity as an individual and free yourself from labels created by others.
Watch the news from other political factions and from other countries, and do it for real, not just once, only to stop because you don’t like it. Don’t feel offended by different opinions; instead, try to understand where they come from and what they aim to achieve. Don’t insult someone for offering you a different idea; you’re not obliged to agree, but you are obliged to behave civilly.
We all fall into the so-called “confirmation bias,” a cognitive distortion that leads us to seek, interpret, and remember only information that confirms what we already believe. This vicious cycle, fueled by news outlets, shows, and algorithms on social media that tend to show us content aligned with our preferences, makes us impermeable to change and limits our understanding of the world. No one is immune—least of all those who believe they are immune—so the only way you have to counter this effect is to always be aware that it’s happening.
Propaganda also works subliminally, with photos of candidates frowning or caught in unpleasant expressions when appearing in opposition magazines, or smiling and victorious when featured on their own political side’s newscasts. Or, for example, through a careful selection of interviews among attendees at political rallies, making their own party’s supporters appear very intelligent and full of valid arguments, while excluding the silly ones, and selecting the most foolish responses from the opposing party’s followers, eliminating the sensible and valid ones. These are just two examples among thousands of ways to present facts, now joined by AI-created manipulations.
This deep belief that belonging to your chosen party makes you morally and intellectually superior is far from democratic—it’s a dictatorship mentality. Being convinced that there can be no dialogue with the opposition and that only your political program should win by any legal or illegal means, is dictatorship. You yourself, if you impose your ideas by raising your voice and plugging your ears when others speak, are a dictator. If you think Democracy means that your party must always win, you are a dictator. Democracy works if citizens support Democracy, not if they support the dictatorship of one side or the other. For this reason, it’s necessary for everyone to realize exactly what they are supporting, and to always remember that all people, even “the others,” simply want to be happy, live in peace, and be free.
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Rescazzi, B. (2024, October 8). Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): RESCAZZI, B. Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Rescazzi, Beatrice. 2024. “Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Rescazzi, B. “Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (October 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Rescazzi, Beatrice. “Democracy or Dictatorship: The Lost Art of Civil Discourse.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/democracy-dictatorship-rescazzi.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Tianxiang Shao (Camus Shaw), a 20-year-old from Huangshan City, Anhui Province, China, is an undergraduate student fluent in Chinese, French, and English. A talented individual, he excels in mathematics, high-range IQ tests, and travel design. He is also a poet, lyricist, and member of multiple high-IQ societies: growing up; extended self; family background; youth with friends; education; purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; extreme reactions to geniuses; greatest geniuses; genius and a profoundly gifted person; necessities for genius or the definition of genius; work experiences and jobs held; job path; myths of the gifted; God; science; tests taken and scores earned; range of the scores; ethical philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview; meaning in life; source of meaning; afterlife; life; and love.
Keywords: Chinese classical philosophy significance, Chinese southern mountain town culture, existentialist ethical philosophy reflection, family legacy influence on choices, high intelligence influence on life, internally generated meaning from experiences, mathematics competition certificates, mystery and transience of human life.
Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Tianxiang Shao: My grandparents were remarkable. During the years when China was impoverished and weak, they made their way from the countryside to the city, which brought prosperity and happiness to our entire family. To this day, their story and spirit continue to be passed down in our family.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Shao: Yes, these stories have influenced my choices, inclining me to pursue my career in big cities. At the same time, I believe life is a continuous journey of exploration, and success is something that each person defines for themselves.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Shao: My parents work in the financial sector, and they are materialists with no religious beliefs.
One distinctive aspect is my mother’s side of the family. My maternal grandparents are from Huangshan, a southern mountain town in China. It’s a peaceful and serene city, and I often say that this city has significantly shaped my outlook on life and the world.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Shao: In fact, I didn’t get along well with most of my peers. In kindergarten, I was often excluded by my classmates, and in elementary school, I tended to remain quiet. It wasn’t until middle school that I started engaging in some social activities.
During elementary school, I would sometimes spend time imagining entire stories inspired by a clock and filling my notebook with writing and drawings. None of my classmates understood what I was expressing, but I found joy in it nonetheless.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Shao: I have received certificates from several mathematics competitions. Additionally, a few months ago, I achieved a good score in the IELTS exam.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Shao: Initially, I took intelligence tests like Mensa and Raven’s out of curiosity to understand my own intellectual abilities. Later, I encountered high-range IQ tests. Now, for me, they serve more as a form of leisure and entertainment.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Shao: In fact, I don’t consider myself to have exceptional intelligence. I don’t want others to see me as someone special. If I had to pinpoint something, it would be during my childhood when we were all learning together—I tended to grasp things more quickly and think about problems more deeply than others.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Shao: A person’s success is influenced by their own qualities, but often, fate plays a significant role as well. Newton became Newton not just because of his genius, but also because he lived in post-Renaissance England. Look at Giordano Bruno, who was also a genius—what was his fate in the end? If Alan Turing were alive today, would he still meet a tragic end?
Similarly, geniuses have different personalities. Some align with the times, while others stand in opposition. Success is not solely determined by intelligence; many factors are involved, and most of them are beyond one’s control.
As for your point about geniuses being camera-shy, I am reminded of my best friend, one of the top geniuses in China, who has achieved incredible scores on various tests. However, he remains humble and dislikes being in the spotlight. This is his personality. In short, geniuses have their own perspectives and choices in life, and we must respect their decisions.
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Shao: There are several people, not just one. I can list a few for you:
From China: Laozi, Zhuangzi, Su Dongpo, and Wang Yangming.
From the West: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Immanuel Kant, and Albert Camus.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Shao: Let me explain it using a mathematical concept: a genius is a subset of profoundly intelligent people. Being profoundly intelligent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a genius.
If we imagine the existing body of knowledge as a large circle, profoundly intelligent individuals can approach the boundary of that circle, while a genius has the ability to break through it. That’s the key difference between them.
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Shao: I already explained this in the previous question: profound intelligence is indeed a necessary condition for genius.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Shao: Haha, I’m currently just a second-year university student.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Shao: I’m currently a student. In the future, I plan to pursue research in artificial intelligence or algorithms because I find these fields fascinating.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Shao: To be frank,I don’t know how to respond. So I don’t answer this question.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Shao: I don’t have any religious beliefs, but when I try to find calm and quiet, I sometimes read Buddhist scriptures.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Shao: Science accounts for about 80% of my worldview.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Shao: I personally enjoy numerical tests. I scored IQ 180+ on Mahir Wu’s Numeric Inspiration Test and even broke the record for this test. On the Chinese verbal test Nocturne II, I achieved an IQ score of 185.
As for international tests, I scored IQ 176 on the SLSE test and IQ 177 on the spatial test COSMIC.
So far, I have achieved six scores above IQ 170 and two scores above IQ 180. I only started taking high-range IQ tests this year, so I haven’t accumulated many scores yet.
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence teststend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Shao: My lowest score on a test was IQ 139 (I submitted it very casually), and my highest score was IQ 185. The median of my twenty test scores is IQ 168, and the average is IQ 169.4.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: For me, the ethical philosophy that makes the most sense and seems the most workable is existentialism. It emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, suggesting that each person must create meaning in their own life through their actions. This philosophy encourages me to reflect on how to find myself in an uncertain and complex world while taking responsibility for my choices.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: It would likely be Marxism, as I was exposed to it from a young age.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: I am not sure.
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: I am not sure.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: Personally, I am fond of classical Chinese philosophy, particularly the Daoist perspective. I advocate for the concept of “wu wei” (non-action), believing that people should follow the natural flow of things, approach gains and losses with a sense of detachment, and face each challenge with a calm and steady mindset.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: I think it would be Marxism, but I don’t really like answering questions with absolutes, such as “the most,” because nothing should be seen as entirely absolute.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Shao: I believe books and music provide meaning in my life.
Reading is a way to engage in dialogue with the great minds of the past, and when I feel life lacks meaning, I find joy in books. Often, problems resolve themselves through this.
Music, on the other hand, is something that can break down barriers, allowing people across the world to understand and communicate with each other without the obstacle of language. In the rhythm of music, I sometimes feel that “the world is one.”
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Shao: I tend to believe that meaning is internally generated.
I can share an interesting story with you. There was an ancient Chinese philosopher named Wang Yangming who once had an insight while looking at flowers. He said, “Before you looked at this flower, it remained in silence with you. When you observe it, its colors become clear. This shows that the flower’s existence is not outside your heart.”
His words are often labeled as subjective idealism, but I don’t think labeling ideas is the right approach.
When people are born, they cannot choose their circumstances. But from that point onward, everything can be changed through their own efforts. One of my favorite movies, The Truman Show, illustrates this well. The protagonist only breaks through the barriers at the end because he firmly believes that he is real and others are not. His belief in himself leads to his final breakthrough.
Life indeed resembles The Truman Show. History continuously rhymes, and no matter how much the external world changes, on a scale of millennia, it all repeats itself. The only thing that can determine everything, and give meaning to all things, is your own heart.
There’s a famous Chinese saying I’d like to share: “Where the heart finds peace, there is my home” (此心安处是吾乡).
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Shao: I only seek peace and happiness in this life, not wealth or status in the next. I don’t like discussing the afterlife much because thinking about the next life before living this one well only adds unnecessary worry.
However, I do hope that everyone has a next life, a chance to reach the “other shore” in the Buddhist sense. There are many forms of cause and effect in this world, and one lifetime isn’t enough to fully understand them. If plants can regenerate over and over, why shouldn’t people be able to as well?
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Shao: The mystery of life lies in the fact that you can never clearly know what will happen in the next moment. You never know whether the next step will be good or bad.
Human life is incredibly brief, but within that short span, endless possibilities can still be created.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Shao: This question brings a bit of sadness to me, as I recently went through a breakup while working on this interview. I used to think I was more mature than others and understood these concepts earlier. I had relationships in both middle school and university, though none of them lasted in the end.
However, I still believe in pure love. To me, love is both a passion and a long-term commitment. I often compare love to Morse code, made up of alternating signals: passion (the short signals) and enduring care (the long signals).
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1). October 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, October 8). Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (October 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1) [Internet]. 2024 Oct; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
We’re in the middle of Banned Books Week — an observance that is troublingly appropriate this year.
“The attempts to censor, restrict or ban books in 2024 in the United States continued to surpass pre-pandemic levels, while books with LGBTQ-plus themes dominate the most-challenged list, advocacy groups said in reports released Monday, just as Banned Books Week began,” reports the Washington Post. “The annual event, which will run through Saturday nationwide, seeks to spotlight the value of free and open access to information.”
We at the Freedom From Religion Foundation are deeply familiar with the awful history of censorship. As Heinrich Heine famously observed, “Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings.” And the scourge of book suppression currently seems phenomenally robust.
“More than 10,000 books were removed, at least temporarily, in U.S. public schools during the 2023-24 school year, according to preliminary data from PEN America,” states the Post. “This figure is nearly three times higher than the number from the previous school year, it said.”
A huge propellant of these bans, as the Post points out, are statehouses and right-wing, often Christian nationalist advocacy groups. Examples range from Utah, South Carolina and Tennessee recently to Iowa and Florida a bit further back.
FFRF advocates, above all, for freedom of thought. We oppose banning books from public schools and libraries. There’s no true freedom of thought, conscience or even religion, unless our government and its public schools and libraries are free from religion and its control over thought.
FFRF is right to be concerned. The American Library Association has come out with some numbers confirming the state/church watchdog’s fears.
“Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2024, ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 414 attempts to censor library materials and services; in those cases, 1,128 unique titles were challenged,” it says. “In the same reporting period last year, ALA tracked 695 attempts with 1,915 unique titles challenged. Though the number of reports to date has declined in 2024, the number of documented attempts to censor books continues to far exceed the numbers prior to 2020.”
The book-banning sweeps are indiscriminate and overbearing, catching masterpieces in their net sometimes simply for referencing topics that censorious critics deem “immoral.” Among the top ten booksbanned in recent times is the Nobel Prize-winner Toni Morrison’s classic “The Bluest Eye.”
Jonna Perrillo, who is pulling together an entire book on these bans and their social effects, details in a piece for Slate the grim consequences.
“Mary teaches in an American high school, but like the other educators in this story, she asked me not to identify her because she fears retribution from her school or district administrator,” she writes. “Mary’s principal reprimanded her colleague for teaching Sherman Alexie poems anthologized in her district-approved textbook. Another elected not to teach Martin Luther King Jr.’s classic ‘Letter From a Birmingham Jail,’ convinced she would be unable to respond freely to student comments in class.”
As Perrillo points out, upward of 40 percent of book challenges in 2022 came from school officials themselves. “‘Parental rights’ has become a major rallying call for conservatives, but in many cases, parents have little to do with the process,” she writes.
Another major source is self-righteous grandstanders hostile to critical thinking, such as the Orwellian and hypocritically named Moms for Liberty. And the impetus isn’t protecting children, it’s about discouraging thought, especially thought that is antithetical to Christian nationalist ideology. True advocates for free speech must be dedicated to counter book bans at all levels.
“We urge everyone to join librarians in defending the freedom to read,” American Library Association President Cindy Hohl has recently said. “We know people don’t like being told what they are allowed to read, and we’ve seen communities come together to fight back and protect their libraries and schools from the censors.”
This Banned Books Week, do everything you can to push back against the pernicious trend of banning, such as letting your local school boards and representatives know that you are against book banning and censorship, donating books to Little Free Libraries in your neighborhood, and buying or checking out banned books.
We need to defend free expression to the utmost of our abilities.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Sanders has persisted in entangling the university’s football program with religion and engaging in religious exercises with students and staff. A video showed Sanders after the Sept. 22 game once again making religious remarks and holding a team prayer in the locker room. Sanders appears to have invited Pastor E. Dewey Smith from the House of Hope Church in Atlanta to deliver the following prayer: God, we thank you tonight for victory, thank you that you kept us relatively safe. Thank you that in spite of our imperfections you still blessed us, Lord. And thank you for being with us to the end. Lord, some people call it Hail Mary, some people call it karma, some people call it luck, but in my faith tradition, we call it Jesus. Grace, thank you for your mercy, bless us, help us to grow from this, learn from this, and take it to the next level. We give you praise, we thank you, in your name we pray, amen.
Smith appears to be acting as the team’s chaplain. A July 29 pregame video refers to him as the “spiritual adviser” to Coach Sanders and the “Chaplain for the Colorado Buffs.” The video features Smith discussing the upcoming football season and team dynamics in a sermon-like manner, intertwining lessons from biblical scripture with his remarks to the team. Sanders may have invited Smith to act as team chaplain when Sanders was previously coaching at Jackson State. It seems Sanders is yet again allowing Smith to act as a team chaplain, this time for the University of Colorado Buffaloes.
Notably, this is not the first time FFRF has fought back against Sanders’ proselytization. In early 2023, FFRF wrote to the college to assert that Sanders must not misuse his position as coach to entangle the football program with Christianity. Shortly afterward, the college assured FFRF that Sanders was provided “guidance on the nondiscrimination policies, including guidance on the boundaries in which players and coaches may or may not engage in religious expression.”
“It appears that Coach Sanders was not as receptive to the training as the university may have initially thought,” FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence writes to University of Colorado Boulder Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer Patrick T. O’Rourke.
FFRF reiterates that the U.S. Supreme Court has continually struck down school-sponsored proselytizing in public schools, and that it is no defense to call these religious messages and activities “voluntary.” Coach Sanders’ team is full of young and impressionable student athletes who would not risk giving up their scholarship, playing time or losing a good recommendation from the coach by speaking out or voluntarily opting out of his unconstitutional religious activities — even if they strongly disagree with his beliefs. Coaches exert great influence and power over student athletes and those athletes will follow the lead of their coach. Using a coaching position to promote Christianity amounts to unconstitutional religious coercion.
FFRF is once more asserting that the University of Colorado must take action to protect the First Amendment rights of student athletes. Sanders needs to understand that he was hired to coach football, not to force student athletes to engage in his preferred religious practices. He must cease infusing the football program with Christianity. In addition, FFRF has submitted an open records request to learn more about Smith’s involvement in the football program and the university, and any policies and records provided to Sanders relating to making religious remarks, holding or leading prayers, promoting religion or otherwise entangling the football program with religion while acting as head coach.
“Sanders is showing his brazen disregard for not only the Constitution, but also the rights of all his players when he decides to force his religion upon them,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Students undoubtedly feel extra pressure to abide by his will at a collegiate sporting level.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with around 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,300 members and a chapter in Colorado. Its purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned district community member informed FFRF that a sixth grade teacher promoted to students a personal bible study taking place every morning before school. The teacher appeared to be orchestrating and teaching the before-school meetings. Additionally, the teacher read as part of the curriculum a book about witches, during which she denigrated witches and witchcraft (since it conflicted with her personal religious beliefs) and told students that Christianity does not look kindly upon witches.
“Public officials may not promote or advertise religious ceremonies when acting in the course of their official duties,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi wrote to the district.
Students have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination in their public schools, FFRF emphasized. By promoting her personal bible study in class, this teacher coerced students’ attendance, and then preached her personal religious beliefs in the classroom when discussing witchcraft. The teacher placed students in a difficult dilemma: Either attend the bible study, affronting their conscience, or not attend — outing themselves as a different believer than their teacher. Similarly, it was inappropriate for the teacher to condemn witchcraft by introducing her personal religious beliefs into the classroom. Her control over the curriculum suggests that she planned the lesson with the intent to denigrate witchcraft.
After FFRF’s action, the district decided to correct the violations at hand.
The school’s legal counsel, Emily Omohundro, wrote back informing that while an investigation did take place, it involved confidential student and personnel information that could not be shared. “The district has taken steps to remind district staff of the district’s policies, including the requirement that staff avoid the promotion of religious views at school,” Omohundro wrote.
“Public school teachers are trusted to teach students secular subjects, and to leave religion to parents or guardians,” adds Joshi, a Missouri-licensed attorney. “Taxpayers should not have to support government officials who demean their religion. That includes teachers who pick on witches.”
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor agrees.
“This teacher’s behavior was unacceptable, and we’re glad to have taken action when we did,” she says. “No public school student should feel coerced into attending a bible study during class time, or have their beliefs be stomped on.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members across the country, including more than 400 in Missouri. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The association recently distributed a special election issue of its Decision magazine focused on the 2024 election, for which the cover page says “SOCIALISM VS. FREEDOM” with corresponding photos of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. In an opening letter, President and CEO Franklin Graham denigrates the Democratic Party’s platform:
Progressive, liberal thought and activism have so contaminated the mainstream of American life and culture that once-unthinkable abominations such as same-sex marriage, abortion on demand and transgender advocacy have become dogma in one major party’s platform.
Graham then tells readers to “vote for candidates who best align with and stand for Biblical principles.” This is followed by a cherry-picked comparison between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump intended to encourage readers to vote for Trump over Harris. Outside of the comparison, the election guide includes a quote from Trump given at a Moms for Liberty event in June 2023:
Our enemies are waging a war on freedom and faith, on science and religion, on history and tradition, on law and democracy, on the family, on children, on America itself.
There is no reason for this quote to appear except to encourage readers to vote for Donald Trump. The overall takeaway from this election guide is that Christians should vote for Trump over Harris in the presidential election and Republicans in state and local elections. It shows a clear bias and preference for Trump and Republicans in the upcoming elections and is distributed for the purpose of intervening in these elections.
“The Internal Revenue Code states that to retain their 501(c)(3) status an organization cannot ‘participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office,’” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes to the IRS. “In this instance, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has breached the responsibilities of its tax-exempt status by publishing an election guide that gives the clear impression that it favors one candidate over the other and one party over the other.”
FFRF is a registered 501(c)(3) and it takes this designation — along with the accompanying privileges and responsibilities — very seriously. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association obviously doesn’t and that’s why donations made to the organization should no longer be treated as tax deductible. The IRS should immediately take all appropriate action to remedy any violations of 501(c)(3) regulations that occurred or which continue to occur.
“The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is engaging in a blatant violation of its tax-exempt status,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The IRS can’t permit it to engage in such open electioneering.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is insisting that four public school districts in Texas put a stop to a variety of constitutional violations.
In the Mansfield Independent School District, a teacher at Mansfield High School has been placing proselytizing biblical quotes and even Christian crosses around her classroom. In the Red Oak Independent School District in Red Oak, a recent mandatory employee convocation commenced with prayer over a loudspeaker. Reportedly, this violation occurs every year at this high school and other district schools.
FFRF has also learned of violations in the Arlington-based Arlington Independent School District, where ongoing proselytization occurred during school-football team meetings at James Bowie High School. During a scheduled ninth period class, the Junior Varsity and Varsity teams received a lecture on the importance of living their lives according to the bible, with one witness reporting that a football team coach discussed how God teaches people to “spread their domain” while projecting a verse from Genesis onto a screen as a visual aid. Lastly, in the Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District (located not too far from Austin), parents were sent a message through ParentSquare promoting a study of Ken R. Canfield’s “The H.E.A.R.T. of Grandparenting,” a book reflecting on the author’s “biblical insight.” The Sept. 10 message invited grandparents to discuss the book at the Jordan Intermediate Library on Sept. 19, while also suggesting future meetings.
“They say everything is bigger in Texas. Apparently so is the disregard for students’ rights,” remarks FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi.
School districts may not proselytize a captive audience, FFRF emphasizes — and this includes through religious displays in classrooms, school-sponsored prayers, religious classes and book studies. Each of these districts violate the First Amendment rights of conscience of students and employees when promoting religion. By promoting religion, they convey a message to non-Christians that they are disfavored members of the community, while adherents are insiders, favored members. Every public school district has a constitutional duty to remain neutral toward religion. Any inclusion of religion abridges that duty and needlessly excludes and marginalizes students and employees who are part of the 37 percent of the American population that is non-Christian — including the nonreligious at almost 30 percent segment of the populace.
In order for these districts to be brought in line with the Constitution, they must drop any and all religious intrusions in classrooms, mandatory meetings, class work and extracurricular book studies.
“School districts exist to educate, not indoctrinate into religion,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “These four districts have been using their official communication channels, classrooms and teaching to unabashedly promote Christianity to public school students and this is a misuse of their authority, violating both student and parental rights.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,700 members and a chapter in Texas. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The hosts of the “We Dissent” podcast discuss on its latest episode the most urgent Christian nationalist threat to democracy — Project 2025.
On episode 34, FFRF Deputy Legal Director Liz Cavell, Americans United Legal Director Rebecca Markert and American Atheists Vice President for Legal and Policy Alison Gill dig into the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the comprehensive transition roadmap for the next conservative administration. They explain the project and illustrate the throughlines of its policy agenda: Christian nationalist ideology and the obliteration of the separation of church and state.
Find previous episodes here, which examine developments affecting the separation of church and state, particularly in the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Past episodes include discussions about court reform, religion behind bars and abortion, and also feature a range of expert guests.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The hosts of the “We Dissent” podcast discuss on its latest episode the most urgent Christian nationalist threat to democracy — Project 2025.
On episode 34, FFRF Deputy Legal Director Liz Cavell, Americans United Legal Director Rebecca Markert and American Atheists Vice President for Legal and Policy Alison Gill dig into the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the comprehensive transition roadmap for the next conservative administration. They explain the project and illustrate the throughlines of its policy agenda: Christian nationalist ideology and the obliteration of the separation of church and state.
Find previous episodes here, which examine developments affecting the separation of church and state, particularly in the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Past episodes include discussions about court reform, religion behind bars and abortion, and also feature a range of expert guests.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
New research confirms that evangelical Christian beliefs are the strongest predictors of climate change denial.
New York University political scientist John Kane and University of Oklahoma sociologist Samuel Perry have published a new working paper finding that the belief claiming God “has a secret timeline involving Jesus’ return and the world’s decline and destruction” is the strongest religious predictor of reluctance to endorse policies to combat climate change. Such sentiment is exemplified by William Wolfe’s “A Biblical Worldview of Climate Change,” wherein he writes: “Christians are people who take God at His word. God has promised the Earth will never again be destroyed — so we should live and act like that’s true because it is.”
This nonsensical take on climate change doesn’t only exist among rank-and-file evangelical Christians. Most evangelicals who hold elected office recklessly refuse to accept demonstrable truths about climate change and thus fail to act on this crisis. Kane and Perry cite the views of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., at a town hall: “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”
John Shimkus, as a member of Congress, dismissed climate change concerns by echoing the ridiculous belief that “God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.” Jon Barton, when also in the House of Representatives, cited the bible to rebuke scientific consensus that humans have contributed to climate change. “I would point out that if you are a believer in the bible, one would have to say the great flood was an example of climate change,” Barton once told a congressional hearing.
Simply put, these narrow and ignorant viewpoints have consequences. If the Heritage Foundation and its cronies get their wish, Project 2025 would slash EPA funding, undermining the government’s commitment through the Inflation Reduction Act to transition to clean energy, and delegating environmental regulations to the states.
Stepping outside of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s office in Madison, Wis., the past two weeks is enough to give anyone pause. It is abnormally hotter than it should be for this time of year.
While this is one mere data point of temperature, the aggregate data points to a disturbing trend. The summer of 2023 was the hottest in 2,000 years and heat-related deaths rose above 2,300. NASA finds the summer of 2024 the hottest summer to date, with August 2024 setting a new monthly temperature record. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the first eight months of 2024 ranked as the second-warmest year to date. The case for climate change is clear, whether evangelicals want to acknowledge it or not. Whether they “believe” in climate change or not, our planet is experiencing catastrophic extremes, as the current endless wildfires in California and the historically catastrophic flooding going on right now in central Europe bear witness to.
While evangelicals turn a blind eye to this crisis, the “Nones” are likely to agree that there is climate change, that it is human induced and that climate mitigation policy is necessary to combat it. A Pew Research poll showed that 90 percent of atheists — the highest percentage of any group by religion (or lack thereof) to do so — believe the data and acknowledge the reality of climate change.
“Atheists, agnostics, and others with no religion see the writing on the wall and we are the ones who should be leading the charge to implement policy solutions to combat this crisis,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “Project 2025 seeks to kill the Inflation Reduction Act, which is keeping our nation on its path to meet its global commitments and protect the future of our children and grandchildren.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
This week’s episode of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “Freethought Matters” TV interview show focuses on Christian patriarchy — and the women still trapped in it.
Guest Cait West was raised in the Christian purity movement, where women are taught to be completely subservient to fathers. She eventually found the courage to break away and is now a writer and editor based in Michigan. She co-hosts “The Survivors Discuss” podcast and currently serves on the editorial board for Tears of Eden, a nonprofit providing resources for survivors of spiritual abuse. West is also the author of a gripping new personal account, “Rift: A Memoir of Breaking Away from Christian Patriarchy.” West explains in the book that in Christian patriarchy, each family’s father is deemed a prophet, priest, even a Christ figure.
“My understanding of the Christian patriarchy movement is that starting in the 1990s, there was something called Patriarch magazine and a kind of a grassroots movement of male pastors who were promoting this idea that men are in charge of all aspects of society and that women should submit to them,” West tells co-hosts Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. “It taught things like girls such as me couldn’t go to college or work a job. We had to live with our fathers until our fathers helped us find a husband to get married to.” She poignantly describes how she got the courage to break free.
(To view details on channel variations depending on your provider, click here.)
If you don’t live in any of the marquee towns where the show broadcasts on Sunday, you can already catch the interview on FFRF’s YouTube channel. New shows go up every Thursday.
Upcoming guests include an expert on the Comstock Act, an author of a new book on the Scopes Trial and another author writing on the dangers of vouchers to aid religious schools. You can catch interviews from previous seasons here, including with Gloria Steinem, Ron Reagan, author John Irving, actor John “Q” de Lancie and award-winning columnist Katha Pollitt.
Please tune in to “Freethought Matters” . . . because freethought matters.
P.S. Please tune in or record according to the times given above regardless of what is listed in your TV guide (it may be listed simply as “paid programming” or even be misidentified). To set up an automatic weekly recording, try taping manually by time or channel. And spread the word to freethinking friends, family or colleagues about a TV show, finally, that is dedicated to providing programming for freethinkers — your antidote to religion on Sunday morning!
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
FFRF, a national state/church watchdog, has learned that the district has started a bible study called “Donuts & God.” The district recently promoted and celebrated attendance at Panhandle Junior High’s study group on its official Facebook page. One picture of the post includes a bible quote from the Old Testament, Proverbs 4:25-27: “Let your eyes look forward; fix your gaze straight ahead. Carefully consider the path for your feet, and all your ways will be established. Don’t turn to the right or to the left; keep your feet away from evil.” Then, a Christian message apparently paraphrased from the New Testament book Hebrews 12:2–4 was added: “Keep your eyes focused on Jesus.”
“Government-sponsored [devotional] bible studies are unconstitutional,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi writes to the district. “Further, government religious messaging is inappropriate and unnecessarily divisive.”
It is a constitutional violation for the district to host and promote a proselytizing bible study or any religion, religious events or religious clubs on its official social media pages, FFRF adds. By promoting Christian messages on the official district Facebook page, the district conveys a message to all non-Christians that they are disfavored members of the community. The district must be more aware and sensitive to the diverse community it represents and serves.
If the event was part of a student club, the school’s promotion of it on the Facebook page would still be a violation of the federal Equal Access Act, which bars school officials or outside adults from running student clubs or, for example, hyping them up on the official district Facebook. Whether officially district-sponsored or not, “Donuts & God” runs head first into either the First Amendment or the Equal Access Act. FFRF insists that the club must be disbanded or reformed to better respect the First Amendment rights of students.
“School districts exist to educate, not indoctrinate into religion,” adds FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This district appears to be taking advantage of a captive audience of students to promote a blatant message of religious favoritism over minority religions and nonreligion.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,700 members and a chapter in Texas. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
More than 20 volunteer chapters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation have pooled their resources in order to erect voter awareness billboards on behalf of FFRF in all seven swing states.
These billboards launch Freedom From Religion Foundation’s public voter awareness campaign, a full-scale marketing effort leading up to the Nov. 5 election.
The swing state campaign is the brainchild of Judy Saint, who runs the Greater Sacramento Chapter of FFRF and says she was losing sleep wondering how her California chapter and others could help get out the vote in crucial swing states.
“This was the best thing I could do with our donors’ earnest contributions,” she remarks. “We have to save democracy.”
Saint adds, “As we fight Christian nationalism in this next election, our chapter decided to pull together all the national chapters of FFRF to put up at least one billboard in each swing state.”
This is the first time all FFRF chapters in FFRF’s close to half-a-century history have coordinated on a campaign.
Not just seven but 10 “Be a Voter” billboards are going up (including a “bonus” billboard in the important-but-not-swing state of Florida), thanks to the chapters’ impressive fundraising efforts, which yielded $32,000. FFRF almost matched that total. FFRF and its chapters sited the billboards near major public universities to encourage Gen Z voters, almost half of whom have no religious affiliation but who are less likely to vote.
“Be a Voter — Protect Democracy, Wisconsin” was the first billboard to go up in August (pictured below), just two blocks from Camp Randall Stadium in Madison, Wis., in time to greet students moving back to campus and those attending September’s overflowing home football games.
A similar message in Pittsburgh, “Be a Voter — Protect Democracy, Pennsylvania” (pictured below) is up on Banksville Road, a quarter mile south of Parkway. An identical message will soon go up on a billboard at a prominent bridge in Philadelphia near Temple University.
Two billboards saying “Be a Voter — Protect Democracy, Arizona” are already up in the Phoenix area, including a highly visible 12-foot-by-12-foot board in front of a Whole Foods store at the corner of University Drive and South Ash Avenue in Tempe, close to Arizona State University. An identical message can be found on a digital billboard on Loop 202, west of Scottsville. Mars de la Tour, who directs the FFRF Valley of the Sun chapter, helped choose the locations and arrange a group photo (pictured above).
“For us at the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Valley of the Sun Chapter, placing a ‘Be A Voter! Save Democracy, Arizona!’ billboard near Arizona State University is more than just a message — it’s a vital opportunity to reach the next generation of voters in one of the most pivotal swing states in the nation,” says de la Tour.
The final “Be a Voter” billboards will be going up by late September or early October in Ann Arbor, Mich., Charlotte, N.C., Las Vegas and Atlanta.
The “bonus” billboard in Florida can be found at Colonial Drive, west of Alafaya Trail, Orlando. Thanks to Central Florida Freethought Community co-founders David and Jocelyn Williamson (pictured below) for their help.
“We’re so grateful to Judy and the Sacramento chapter for their amazing initiative, and for the generosity of all of FFRF’s other chapters around the country, as well as for some nonchapter donors,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Our message to voters is: Vote like your rights depend on it — because they do.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned Clarke County Public Schools parent has informed the national state/church watchdog that the school district is considering establishing a “Community Mentorship Program” with Fellowship Bible Church that would allow the church to proselytize to district students. On Aug. 19, the church presented its proposal to establish a mentorship program before the school board. During the presentation, Scott Santmeier, the church’s pastor of local outreach, reportedly claimed that the intent of the partnership is not to proselytize, but it is clear from the church’s website that this is not true. The church’s mentoring partnership website includes a list of “RESOURCES TO HELP YOU SHARE JESUS,” and explains that “[a] mentor from Fellowship Bible Church is an Ambassador of Christ in an increasingly difficult world.”
Clarke County Public Schools must reject this unconstitutional and inappropriate partnership with Fellowship Bible Church in order to respect the constitutional rights of students and avoid government entanglement with religion, FFRF is advising. While a mentorship program for students is a laudable district goal, it cannot partner with a church and give them access to convert or recruit its students.
“Public schools may not show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writesto Clarke County Public Schools Board Chair Monica Singh-Smith. “By partnering with Fellowship Bible Church and providing its representatives special access to meet, talk to, and mentor students, the district risks displaying clear favoritism towards religion over nonreligion, Christianity over all other faiths, and a preference for Fellowship Bible Church over other churches.”
A partnership with Fellowship Bible Church would put Clarke County Public Schools in the dubious position of entangling itself with a church, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Clarke County Public Schools must respect that “the preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere,” to quote the U.S. Supreme Court. Parents, not public schools, have the right to determine their children’s religious or nonreligious upbringing. Likewise, the proposal would violate the Virginia Constitution, which explicitly bars citizens from being “compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever.”
And such a partnership would be a particular affront to the 49 percent of Generation Z members who are religiously unaffiliated, FFRF adds.
In order to protect the First Amendment rights of students, the Clarke County Public Schools Board must reject the proposal to establish a “Community Mentorship Program” with Fellowship Bible Church at its meeting on Monday, Sept. 23, FFRF reiterates in conclusion.
“A church cannot be allowed to propagate its sectarian doctrine in public school programs,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Students are young, impressionable and a captive audience. Their rights of conscience — and the right of parents to determine their children’s religious instruction — must be safeguarded.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members across the country, including close to 1,000 members in Virginia. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: Secular Connexion Séculière (SCS) is a national organization dedicated to advocating and lobbying for atheist rights in Canada, to facilitating communication and dialogue among Canadian atheists, and to communicating Canadian human rights values to the world. SCS does not have, nor does it seek, any governing powers in the Canadian atheist community. Rather, it seeks support for its efforts to defend non-believers right to freedom from religion, to lobby the Canadian government on the behalf of Canadian atheists, to provide communication conduits for Canadian atheist organizations.
November 17, 2024 – 12:30 pm
SCS President, Doug Thomas will represent the Secular Humanist perspective at the World Religions Conference in Hamilton, Ontario on November 17, 2024. The theme of the conference is World Peace and Religion. There will be opportunities for questions to all representatives.
This is an other opportunity for Secular Humanism to represent itself to the wider community, or as Thomas has said before, “an opportunity for a Secular Humanist to speak to people who are skeptical about skepticism.” Thomas will address the realities confronting World Peace and the effects of religions upon it, Join Doug and fellow non-believers in representing the Humanist perspective.
Details of the event are: Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024; Time: 12:30 PM to 4:30 PM Host: Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada Theme: World Peace & Religion Admission: Free Venue: McMaster University, Peter George Center for Living and Learning, PG Hall, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8 Program Format: Moderator hosted w/live webcast streaming through MTA Canada Speakers representing: Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Indigenous, Sikihsm, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
The Secular Coalition for America (SCA), in collaboration with its 20 coalition partners, has penned a letter refuting several inaccuracies in Senator Josh Hawley’s essay, “The Christian Nationalism We Need.” Contrary to his claims, the Founding Fathers did not endorse a Christian nation, Christian nationalism poses a danger to our democracy, and a lack of belief in God is not the “crisis of our time.”
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Monday Afternoon, October 7, 2024
MRFF VICTORY!!!
MRFF STOPS DEMON-FEARING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST COMMANDER FROM REPLACING UNIT HALLOWEEN PARTY WITH“NEW TESTAMENT HOLIDAY COSTUME PARTY”
“Then just the other day our Commander said some jacked up shit to our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) about how ‘Halloween is inspired by demons and the devil’ and that ‘celebrating Halloween is the devil’s work’ and that he ‘won’t support anything that supports Satan.’ Yes he actually said this shit. Not very surprised as he is big on pushing his Christian faith anywhere and everywhere within our unit. He also now sometimes wears a ‘Trump 2024’ hat lately around our unit premises. We know that’s so messed up too. Nobody says anything though because he’s the Commander. “Our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) was able to talk him out of totally canceling our Halloween party. But our Commander decided instead to ‘encourage the troops’ (meaning do what I say!) to come to a brand new event that he and his wife would put on at the same time our event was supposed to happen called a ‘New Testament Holiday Costume Party’. Where those unit personnel and the families attending dress up as their favorite New Testament characters. Are you f——ing kidding me? “I shit you not that is what he decided to do.” — E-mail from junior enlisted MRFF client on behalf of a group of 26 unit members
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Christian commander tries to replace unit Halloween party with “New Testament Holiday Costume Party” By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Monday, October 7, 2024
“I shit you not that is what he decided to do,” writes a junior enlisted service member to the MilitaryReligious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) in an e-mail about their fundamentalist Christian commander’s plan to keep his unit safe from demonic forces by replacing the unit’s Halloween party with a “New Testament Holiday Costume Party.” Yes, it’s that time of year again — that time when we have U.S. militarycommanders, some of whom have risen very high up in the ranks, who are terribly worried that spooky decorations and kids in costumes might summon the Prince of Darkness. And, so, these Lucifer-leery leaders try their damnedest to get their unit’s or base’s Halloween parties canceled or, as with this year’s “New Testament Holiday Costume Party,” replaced with good, wholesome, non-Satan-summoning Christian fun. Last year it was a commander and his wife hosting a Bible knowledge contest on Halloweenfor soldiers “who do not wish to honor Satan,” and before that a commander who tried to cancel his base’s Halloween party, claiming that Halloween is “disrespectful to Christian personnel” because it elevates “satan over Christ.” As the junior enlisted service member who sent the e-mail below explains, their commander not only aimed to have his ‘Who-would-Jesus-go-as?’ party as an option in addition to the unit’s Halloween party, he tried to de factocancel the unit’s Halloween party, which months of planning had gone into, by getting, as the junior enlisted service member explained:
“… our prior (superior military unit designation name withheld) approval to hold the unit Halloween event in our HQ multipurpose room revoked. And guess what? Now his ‘New Testament Holiday Costume Party’ gets to be there instead of our unit Halloween party.”
Well, unfortunately for any fundamentalist Christian unit members who might have wanted to get a zombie costume and go to the commander’s do as Lazarus raised from the dead, the “New Testament Holiday Costume Party” has been canceled and the unit Halloween party is back on, as our junior enlisted service member writes:
“Everyone was pissed as f— about this! We went to our base’s MRFF Reps right away who got us to Mikey Weinstein just as fast. Mikey encouraged us to hang in there while he reached out to our senior command chain on our behalf. “It took 2 days after Mikey and the MRFF intervened but the good news is that the Commander’s ‘New Testament’ party has just been scratched. And our unit’s Halloween Party is totally back on and is going to once again be held in our multipurpose room per the original plan we had already gotten approved!”
Here’s the whole e-mail from our junior enlisted service member, written on behalf of a group of 26 unit members:
From: (Active Duty Junior Enlisted Member’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: MRFF Saves Halloween From Being Replaced By Commander’s New Testament Costume PartyDate: October 3, 2024 at 2:52:07 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein Hello MRFF. I am an active duty service member (junior enlisted) writing on behalf of 26 other active duty service members (me included, both enlisted and officer ranks) in great thanks to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. For helping us stop our Commander from ruining Halloween for ourselves and our families. Seventeen of us, like me, are Christians by the way. Others are from other religions and some no religion. I was assigned this summer to our unit’s Halloween Party Steering Committee along with many others to help our unit’s morale. Our job was simple. Just to organize a nice traditional Halloween celebration for our unit and its families for Thursday 31 Oct 24 in the early afternoon and evening. We’ve all been working hard on this for several months now. We had filed all the appropriate paperwork to get our large multipurpose room in our unit’s HQ building as the Halloween Party venue. Took forever and was a real pain in the ass but we got it done. Lots of good eats, beverages, games etc. and typical Halloween fun and stuff for the families and especially the kids too. Then just the other day our Commander said some jacked up shit to our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) about how “Halloween is inspired by demons and the devil” and that “celebrating Halloween is the devil’s work” and that he “won’t support anything that supports Satan.” Yes he actually said this shit. Not very surprised as he is big on pushing his Christian faith anywhere and everywhere within our unit. He also now sometimes wears a “Trump 2024” hat lately around our unit premises. We know that’s so messed up too. Nobody says anything though because he’s the Commander. Our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) was able to talk him out of totally canceling our Halloween party. But our Commander decided instead to “encourage the troops” (meaning do what I say!) to come to a brand new event that he and his wife would put on at the same time our event was supposed to happen called a “New Testament Holiday Costume Party”. Where those unit personnel and the families attending dress up as their favorite New Testament characters. Are you f——ing kidding me? I shit you not that is what he decided to do. He also got our prior (superior military unit designation name withheld) approval to hold the unit Halloween event in our HQ multipurpose room revoked. And guess what? Now his “New Testament Holiday Costume Party” gets to be there instead of our unit Halloween party. Everyone was pissed as f— about this! We went to our base’s MRFF Reps right away who got us to Mikey Weinstein just as fast. Mikey encouraged us to hang in there while he reached out to our senior command chain on our behalf. It took 2 days after Mikey and the MRFF intervened but the good news is that the Commander’s “New Testament” party has just been scratched. And our unit’s Halloween Party is totally back on and is going to once again be held in our multipurpose room per the original plan we had already gotten approved! No word at all yet from our Commander about any of this and we doubt he will say anything at all as he is obviously the Big Loser here. Even though it was bad before with him and us now pretty much everyone in the unit despises him for trying to cancel our Halloween event due to “the devil”. All 26 of us want to thank our base MRFF Reps (all 3 of them) 2 of whom are coming to our unit Halloween Party and especially Mikey Weinstein for jumping into this mess immediately for us all and getting it squared away for us. Now our military families and spouses and kids will have a real Halloween bash to be proud of! Please do not reveal any of our names to the public because we know our Commander and those in our chain who agree with him would try to tune us up good for going to the MRFF for help and for the MRFF getting us the Big W here. We so appreciate what the MRFF does for all of us in our country’s armed services because there is just no way we can do it ourselves without facing very bad consequences from our superiors. (Active Duty Junior Enlisted Member’s name, rank, MOS/AFSC, unit, and installation all withheld)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday Afternoon, September 25, 2024
MRFF DEMAND LEADS TOP LEVEL ARMY IGTO OPEN INVESTIGATIVE INQUIRY INTO 3-STAR PENTAGON GENERAL’S DISTURBINGTIES TO NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION
As previously reported, on the weekend of August 29-31, 2024, U.S. Army Lt. General Brian Eifler, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, was photographed giving a presentation – in uniform – at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, from 2021 until this past summer, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets, apostles, and kingdom warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation — a politically influential Christian dominionist movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it. Two days ago, MRFF received an e-mail from a Senior Investigator with the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency – Investigations Division, informing us that his office has opened an “investigative inquiry” into Lt. General Eifler’s NAR activities. An Inspector General’s “investigative inquiry” is comparable to a grand jury in the civilian world looking at the evidence to determine if that evidence is damning enough to indict someone. If this investigative inquiry by the Army’s highest level IG office finds the requisite evidence (which MRFF intends to supply on a silver platter), a full-blown IG investigation would be the expected next step of the several actions that could be taken against Lt. General Eifler.
U.S. Army Lt. General Brian Eifler speaking in uniform at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held in Washington, D.C., from August 29-31, 2024
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Army IG opens investigative inquiry into 3-star general’s ties to the New Apostolic Reformation! By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Wednesday, September 25, 2024
A little less than two weeks ago, on Friday, September 13, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent a letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks demanding an immediate investigation of U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who, in August. delivered a presentation, in uniform, at a major New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) event. The event was NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in Washington, D.C., at which NAR prophets, apostles, and other assorted kingdom warriors from all 50 states come together to strategize about how they’re going to seize dominion over the world, which, for us here in America, means ending democracy as we know it. This is not hyperbole. The NAR is a dangerous, politically influential movement, whose annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held a stone’s throw from the Capitol Building, includes legislative briefings with like-minded members of Congress. No member of the United States military, let alone a 3-star Pentagon general, has any business being involved in any way with this subversive conglomerate of Christian dominionists, but there was Lt. General Eifler, whose wife Sherry is a member of the NAR’s “Alaska’s War Council,” delivering a presentation — again, in full uniform — at their major annual gathering (a presentation that, for some reason, involved a map of the Asia-Pacific region). Well, two days ago, MRFF received an e-mail from a Senior Investigator with the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency – Investigations Division, complete with his IG credentials signed by Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, informing us that his office has opened an “investigative inquiry” into Lt. General Eifler’s NAR activities. To borrow an analogy from MRFF’s fearless leader Mikey Weinstein, an Inspector General’s “investigative inquiry” is comparable to a grand jury in the civilian world looking at the evidence to determine if that evidence is damning enough to indict someone. If this investigative inquiry by the Army’s highest level IG office finds the requisite evidence (which MRFF intends to supply on a silver platter), a full-blown IG investigation would be the expected next step of the several actions that could be taken against Lt. General Eifler. The IG investigator has asked for MRFF’s participation in the investigative inquiry, to which the answer is “Hell yes!” Now, as often happens when MRFF exposes a bad actor in our military, we get contacted by people who, from personal experience, know things about that individual and their doings — things that we could not possibly find out on our own. And, that is exactly what has happened in this case. So, even with as much incriminating evidence and information about Lt. General Eifler and his “Alaska’s War Council” wife as was in my post from September 13 (which I am including in its entirety below for those who might have missed it), we’re gonna have a whole lot more for that IG investigative inquiry! So, stay tuned. I think this one is going to get very, very interesting.
Previous post from September 13 (Note: Some of the Facebook content linked to in this post was taken down shortly after the post was posted, but the links have been left in here as they appeared in the original post.) MRFF demands investigation of 3-Star Pentagon general’s disturbing ties to New Apostolic Reformation
On a September 4 Zoom call of “Alaska’s War Council,” Eleanor Roehl, co-founder of Kingdom Warriors Alaska, Kingdom Alliance Network and Alaskan Representative on Cindy Jacobs’s Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, opened the call by welcoming her fellow “War Council” members:
“Good evening. Greetings to you from Anchorage, Alaska. We want to welcome of course the War Council on tonight. … And of course we have Sherry Eifler, living in Washington, D.C., who we just saw – her and of course her husband Brian in D.C. last weekend. … It is so great to have Sherry Eifler stationed in D.C. as a part of our War Council.”
And who is Sherry Eifler’s husband Brian, referred to so familiarly by Eleanor Roehl? Well, that would be U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who recently got his third star and a new position as Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, moving to D.C. after three years in Alaska as Commanding General, 11th Airborne Division. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry Eifler, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets and apostles and prayer warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation. And what was the event in D.C. that Eleanor Roehl had just seen Sherry Eifler and her 3-star general husband Brian at? That would be the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held less than a month ago, from August 29-31, 2024. And it wasn’t as if Lt. General Eifler was just tagging along with his “Alaska’s War Council” wife and her New Apostolic Reformation pals to this NAR event. Oh no! This 3-star general was an active participant, giving a presentation (that, for some reason, involved a map of the Asia-Pacific region) to an audience that included Apostle Cindy Jacobs herself! And he even put on his 3-star Army general uniform for the occasion, as photos on the Indiana Canopy of Prayer’s Facebook page show.
H/T to NAR researcher Kira Resistance for spotting the above photos and NAR expert Frederick Clarkson, a Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates, for passing them on to MRFF.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), as anybody who follows us knows, routinely goes after military personnel, especially high-ranking officers, who blatantly violate the Department of Defense and service branch regulations that strictly prohibit the wearing of military uniforms while participating in religious events. There’s no question that Lt. General Eifler violated these regulations when giving his presentation at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s Reformation Prayer Network gathering in uniform. But this is infinitely more serious than that, given that the NAR isn’t just a religious movement but also a powerful, dangerous, and growing political movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it. Apostle Cindy Jacobs, whose big NAR gathering Lt. General Eifler just participated in, was one of the Trump-supporting prayer leaders outside the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, saying at the beginning of the video in the tweet below, as the breach of the Capitol was getting underway, “And we’re right in front of the Capitol and the lord had given me a vision and he showed me that they would break through and go all the way to the top.”
At the time of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Lt. General Eifler, then a 1-star general, was stationed at the Pentagon as the Army’s Chief Legislative Liaison. Don’t know much about the NAR? You’re not alone. But if you’re familiar with the now-iconic White House photo of people laying their hands on Trump, who they believe was anointed president by God, that’s as good as any place to start.
The blond woman next to Trump is Apostle Paula White (now Paula White-Cain since she married her third husband, Jonathan Cain of the band Journey), Trump’s spiritual advisor. And here is a must-watch video, preserved for posterity by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch, of Paula White on November 4, 2020, leading a prayer service to secure Trump’s reelection. (I have no idea what the guy nonchalantly walking back and forth behind her reading something is doing.)
Now, I probably know a bit more about the NAR than most people because of the kind of work I do, but I’m the first to admit that what I know barely scratches the surface of this seemingly endless web of prophets and apostles and networks and churches. Fortunately for us, there are people who have been closely following and reporting on the NAR for decades, among them Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates Frederick Clarkson and Rachel Tabachnick, a former associate fellow at Political Research Associates and now an independent researcher, writer, and speaker. So, before getting back to Lt. General Eifler, his “Alaska’s War Council” wife, and his participation in uniform at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. in August, let’s take a few minutes to turn to the experts and become better acquainted with this nefarious network. A November 17, 2020, Religion Dispatches article by Frederick Clarkson titled “Beneath the ‘Wacky’ Paula White Video is a Dark and Deeply Undemocratic World Propping Up the President” included the following quotes from Rachel Tabachnick, that do a good job of concisely conveying the growth and dominionist ambitions of the NAR (emphasis added):
“The apostolic and prophetic networks that now dominate organized Christian Zionism have transitioned from more passive narratives of events to take place in the afterlife toward narratives requiring dominion over the world in this life. The political implications of this transcend the role of the U.S. alone, and engages many “nationalisms” around the world, as millions are taught an increasingly politicized interpretation of the prerequisites required for the return of Jesus and the end of the natural world.”
and …
“White and many other prosperity doctrine evangelists have adopted the church governance models of the New Apostolic Reformation. White began 2012 with a sermon titled ‘Season of Apostolic Reformation,’ telling her congregation that they must align with this new order. ‘God is a theocracy, not a democracy,’ White stated, and warned congregants to ‘get in, get out, or get run over.’”
“The NAR doesn’t merit our considered attention because some of the leaders may sound nutty to those outside the movement, but because it’s driven by theocratic notions of total societal dominion, including the end of democracy as we’ve known it; and it deserves our attention because it’s developed the political capacities to make these ambitions a lot less of a pipe dream than they seemed even five years ago.”
For those who really want to learn all about the NAR, an excellent resource, already mentioned, is Frederick Clarkson’s “A Reporter’s Guide to the New Apostolic Reformation,” co-authored by Canadian scholar André Gagné, whose recent book American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times is featured in the Salon article “Meet the New Apostolic Reformation, cutting edge of the Christian right” by Paul Rosenberg. The NAR are Christian dominionists, meaning, for those unfamiliar with the term, they believe that fulfilling the “7 Mountains Mandate” — conquering the seven spheres of influence, or “mountains,” (family, religion, government, education, business, arts/entertainment, and media) — is a prerequisite for Jesus to return. On the “Alaska’s War Council” September 19, 2023, Zoom call, Lt. General Eifler’s wife shared a “vision” the lord had given her about the seven mountains:
“The lord gave me a concept that was so much bigger than I was able to fully describe so I began to draw it out and it started with mountains. And then the question I asked God was, ‘What is creative ministry?’ And I had a strong impression it was ministry that’s aligned with our unique identity in Christ lived out in our authority in Christ in the seven mountains of influence. And those seven mountains of influence, if you’re not familiar, are family – everybody’s in the family mountain, right? – religion – everyone’s in the religion mountain – government, because at least in the United States we all have a right to vote – business, education, entertainment, media arts. Those are our mountains. All of these mountains have been established by God for his people to be ministers in. Yes, ministers. Using our God-designed and purposed gifts in all of the mountains that we are in. He has placed us each uniquely in these mountains. Then I saw rivers and streams going down the mountains into the sea, followed by a flash of the throne room of God. The lord is releasing new kingdom creativity to align and partner with bringing his kingdom from heaven to earth. He is calling us to minister in the seven mountains of influence in a new way, remembering that his power, authority, creativity, and purpose flow from his throne room to us, his people. It flows to us and through us. So, in this release of this new creativity, he is calling his children to align with and stand in the authority of their kingdom identity, as royal sons and daughters of the king of kings and as the royal priesthood that he has called us to.”
Yes, visions. NAR people have visions, like this one that the founder of the Indiana Canopy of Prayer, the group that posted the photos of Lt. General Eifler at Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s event, had:
“As I was driving into Indianapolis on I-70E, I had an open vision. The Capitol building in Washington D.C. was picked up and set down in the middle of our capitol [sic] city, Indianapolis. The Lord spoke to me and said, ‘This isn’t a natural governing building, it is a spiritual governing building, but I wanted you to see the importance and the power that I was setting down.’ Next, I saw lines like ribbons going from the top of the building in all directions. They went up and then curved down in all different directions. They went up and then curved down to the ground in many locations. Where they landed, there were big golden stars. The Lord said, ‘These stars represent 24/7 Houses of Prayer that I will raise up.’ Then He said, ‘I want a CANOPY of Prayer over the State of Indiana.’”
Now, setting aside the danger of having visions while driving, the above is very typical of the kind of visions these people reportedly have. Then there are the “declarations” and “decrees,” which are defined in the very useful “A Glossary of New Apostolic Reformation Terms” as follows:
19. Decree & Declare – this is a fruit of word of faith (WoF) theology, the idea being that our words carry some form of inherent power, and are causative. So instead of obeying scripture – “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil 4:6) NARites believe they need to exercise their faith, speak to their mountain, and enforce their dominion in a given situation. They attempt to “speak life” into the dead, dispel hurricanes, quench fires, and restore finances with their decrees and declarations. This “little god” behavior fails every time, because only God can decree or declare. Another form of this is called “speaking into a situation.”
On the February 28, 2024, Zoom call of “Alaska’s War Council,” Sherry Eifler “released” this declaration:
“We declare the military will be God’s righteous warriors of the kingdom of God in partnership with the Lord’s angel army.”
Well, ain’t that special. The wife of a 3-star general — a 3-star general who gave a presentation at a major NAR event — “declaring” that the military will partner with the “Lord’s angel army.” Needless to say, this is extremely troubling, particularly since some NAR leaders teach that believers can command angels, “activating” or “releasing” them for a particular assignment. You might be thinking that this is Lt. General Eifler’s wife saying these things and not Eifler himself, but don’t forget that he himself was at Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s big NAR event in August giving a presentation. Even if Lt. General Eifler isn’t as deeply immersed in NAR theology as his wife clearly is — and we have no way of knowing whether he is or not since, like many high-ranking military officers that MRFF has encountered, he plays it safe by confining his social media presence to military-related posts. He does describe himself on Twitter as “Man of Faith, Servant Leader, Sheep Dog,” and a few of his tweets promote evangelical speakers coming to his base, like Victor Marx, whose website says he “explains what manhood and Christianity should look like in our day,” and whose latest book’s foreword is written by Charlie Kirk, who has called the separation of church and state a “fabrication” and whose Turning Point USA organization bused Trump-supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6.
Whether or not Lt. General Eifler believes everything his wife believes, the fact remains that he appeared at and gave a presentation in uniform at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, indicating that he supports and condones the objectives of this movement – a movement that seeks to destroy democracy as we know it. That really doesn’t “align,” to use a word from Sherry Eifler’s seven mountains vision, with the oath taken by Lt. General Eifler to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, now does it? And this is why MRFF is demanding an investigation of Lt. General Eifler, as you can read in MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s letter to United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks. To wrap things up, I leave you with a few words from Lt. General Eifler’s friends and wife.
A pair of recent e-mails from two of the many, many Christians who support MRFF
“Thank you! From a Christian & Conservative” From: (Active Duty U.S. Army Soldier/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thank you! From a Christian & ConservativeDate: September 24, 2024 at 6:28:49 PM EDTTo: “mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org“ Dear Mikey & MRFF Staff, I can’t begin to express to y’all how appreciative I am to finally have someone to believe in! You immediately understood how difficult it is to come forward. Especially as an Active Duty Soldier. When you first join, you believe in the system. You make an oath to the Constitution, but when you see senior military leaders abuse their positions of authority and be so unashamed about it, it can make you feel powerless. For your team to immediately reach back out to me within just minutes felt so reassuring. A big thing to note, I’m a Conservative and I’m a Christian. But I realized quickly that what these senior people were doing was so wrong. Using an organization that Americans are supposed to believe in, that is supposed to take our sons and daughters and prepare them for war, but instead it is fostering a radical fundamentalist Christian ideology upon young, impressionable Soldiers? All I had to do is ask myself, how would I feel if a General was pushing a radical theology from a different faith? Would that be right? Would I want to stand up against that? I’m sure it would be on the news 24/7. I don’t think what these people are doing is even what Christ would want. I won’t dive into theology, but how can using the State and military chain of command to push your particular radical brand of your Christian faith be anything close to what Jesus did? I only wish I knew about Mikey and his MRFF team before, I feel like I could’ve made a difference earlier. There’s a reason why there’s a massive recruiting and retention problem in the military right now. Best of luck on your current cases. Thanks again, y’all standing up for us means a lot to me and my family. (Active Duty U.S. Army Soldier/MRFF Client’s name, rank, MOS, military unit, and installation all withheld)Click to read in Inbox“Speaking truth to power” From: (U.S. Navy Christian Chaplain’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Speaking truth to power.Date: September 20, 2024 at 7:07:22 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Good evening I’m a christian navy chaplain on active duty orders and have just read the notes on former president Trump toward my Jewish friends. If any of us in uniform said anything of the sort that our former president said we would be relieved from duty. I am so grateful that MRFF is speaking up especially when we are forced to endure an unjust freedom of speech in uniform. Please continue the work that you are doing, speaking truth to power. You speak when we can’t. And indeed you are needed. Please and thank you. V/R, (name, rank, and title of U.S. Navy Christian Chaplain withheld)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Evening, September 19, 2024
SR. DEPT. OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN & MRFF CLIENT EXPRESSES GRATITUDE TO MRFF FORDEFENDING RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS IN OUR U.S. MILITARY AGAINST ALL ODDS
“Thank you so much for your willingness to defend for the military, the freedoms that all American citizens enjoy under the First Amendment. Our strength, our readiness and our ability to fight and win our Nation’s wars depends on it!” — Excerpt from Sr. DoD Civilian/MRFF Client’s Letter
Appreciation Letter Sent to MRFF from Senior Department of Defense Civilian with Over 35 Years of Service
From: (Senior DoD Civilian/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Appreciation Letter From Senior DoD CivilianDate: September 19, 2024 at 8:14:45 AM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Dear Mikey and staff of the MRFF, I wanted to send a note of appreciation for all you do, everyday and sometimes against all odds fighting for service members, DoD civilians and their families to ensure they have the freedom to practice their religiousbeliefs (or not to practice religion at all) and to keep the wall of separation between church and state within the military standing strong. As a senior civilian in DoD with close to 35 years of service and having served across the breadth and depth of the Department, I’ve seen firsthand how much more culturally and religiously diverse our military has become in just one generation. But I also understand how divisive this has become and how that divisiveness undermines the very things that make us the greatest fighting force in the world – morale, good order and discipline, unit cohesion and readiness. I’ve followed and supported your organization for close to 15 years now and know there is no shortage of individuals and organizations that willingly, knowingly, flagrantly violate both DoD and individual service policies intended to prevent the privileging of one religion (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christian Nationalism) over another or undue influence from leaders, chaplains and fellow service members as it relates to religion. Sadly, the Department does not do enough to enforce them. As you well know, history is littered with examples of leaders, often in very senior positions who break the rules and get away with it.With all that’s at stake, if the military is unwilling to hold them accountable, someone must! So Mikey, I am so grateful to you and the foundation for filling that void and holding people accountable for doing the right thing. I also appreciate the swiftness and effectiveness with which you address issues as they arise. You continue to get up and do it every day even though I’m sure it feels at times as though your efforts are futile.You do it even in the face of persistent and often very serious threats made to you personally, the foundation and your family. In my many years of working for the military, I’ve served alongside Soldiers, Airmen, Seamen, and Marines who demonstrated passion for their work, fearless determination, and unwavering dedication to mission, and even though you no longer wear the uniform Mikey, you are among the best of them. I also want to thank you for the handful of times I have reached out to you to report problems in the places I’ve worked over the years. You’ve always addressed the situation immediately, keep the strictest of confidences and you’ve kept me informed of how the issues were being addressed every step of the way. Thank you so much for your willingness to defend for the military, the freedoms that all American citizens enjoy under the First Amendment.Our strength, our readiness and our ability to fight and win our Nation’s wars depends on it! (Senior DoD Civilian/MRFF Client’s name, rank, title, military branch and DoD office symbol all withheld)
As in the letter above,the outpouring of gratitude expressed to the Military Religious FreedomFoundation (MRFF) strengthens our resolve inaggressively fightingChristian Nationalism’s hatred and religious bigotry in our U.S. Military MRFF is also deeply grateful for the many positive sentiments we’ve received from our supporters, who continually help MRFF build the wall separating church and state in our U.S. Military.
Below is only a small sampling of the messages left by supporters on MRFF’s Help Build the Wall website: militaryreligiousfreedom.org/helpbuildthewall/ _____ “Support the MRFF! Keep our military secular and strong!”_____ “Thanks Mikey and MRFF for protecting religious freedom”_____ “American Heroes! The Courageous MRFF! Thanks, Army Veteran”_____ “Thanks Mikey for opposing the christian Taliban in America”_____ “Thank you MRFF! USAF Vet”_____ “Thanks, Mikey and MRFF for defending the constitution!”_____ “MRFF stops christian nationalist theocrats from destroying us all”_____ “No religious tests for military service thank you MRFF!!!”_____ “Keep up the important and outstanding work.”_____ “Thank you Mikey; Keep up the important work you are doing!!!”_____ “In Honor of Mikey and his family; Thanks for your work”_____ “Thank you MRFF! Defending those who defend citizen’s rights”_____ “The Last Bastion Of Freedom Of Belief M.R.F.F.”_____ “MRFF Protects The First Amendment In The United States Military”_____ “Mikey Weinstein YOU ROCK!!!”_____ “Keep up the important work. Thanks Mikey!!”_____ “Thank you for your dedication and focus.”_____ “Thank you Mikey and MRFF for defending the constitution”_____“Love you Mikey! Don’t ever stop.”_____ “MRFF = JUSTICE”_____ “The first amendment lives through you”_____ “Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Go MRFF!”_____ “Mr. Weinstein, build up this wall!”_____ “The world needs more men like Mikey Weinstein!”_____ “Mikey Weinstein a true American hero”
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Johnstone is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for the New York Times, the Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Professor Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults. There is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence–precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
HAMAS apologists like to refer to the NAKBA (Catastrophe in Arabic) of 1948 to justify their program of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Israel. This video sets the record straight. The first use of the word was to describe the failure of the Arab League to exterminate Jews from Israel in 1948 in Israel’s war of independence. The Islamists TOLD the Arabs living in Israel to leave and put them into a permanent status of refugees in that “open air prison” which is Gaza and the West Bank by refusing to resettle them in Arab countries. The plight of “Palestinians” is entirely the result of Islamists’ desire to blame that on Israel and use it to justify their ongoing project of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Jews in the Middle East and ultimately against everyone who refuses to submit to their particularly vicious version of Islam. What is happening in Islamist dominated enclaves in Europe, the UK, and even the US and Canada is part of that project, with oil revenue from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar being used to fund Islamist education in Western madrassas and even Ivy League Universities. I have been banned from posting this video to Facebook. Please post it there if you can. I had no problem posting it to X.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
8 October, 2024
A new report by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, has called on the Department for Education (DfE) to ‘make sure no child falls under the radar’ by introducing a central database of children not in school. Humanists UK welcomes this as a key step in closing one of the legal loopholes exploited by proprietors of illegal faith schools. These proprietors claim that children are being home-educated and attend their establishments for supplementary religious education. The lack of any register means these claims go uninvestigated.
The report, Children Missing Education: The Unrolled Report builds on previous investigations by the office of the Children’s Commissioner into attendance and home education, to provide the first in-depth analysis of the procedures local authorities follow to support children missing education. In Summer 2023, the Children’s Commissioner’s office issued a data request to all local authorities in England and identified that 11,576 children were recorded as listed as missing education between Spring 2021-22 and Spring 2022-23. Of this figure 2,868 were still recorded as missing education. The investigation also found that local authorities lacked consistent access to the information they needed to locate children missing education, did not have the powers to see school rolls or receive information in a timely manner, and had to rely on ‘goodwill and relationships with other services to try to find children when they go missing’.
These figures apply to children taken off school rolls. There are many children who never enter a school setting at all and are therefore never counted as ‘missing education’ because local authorities and the DfE never have a record of them existing at all.
Humanists UK has campaigned for the closure of the legal loopholes used by proprietors of illegal faith schools for over a decade. This includes the introduction of a children not in school register and giving Ofsted powersto investigate suspected settings. There are at least 6,000 children in England missing from mainstream education and who are trapped in unsafe illegal faith ‘schools’, being subject to a narrow, scriptural education in cramped, unsanitary conditions. It is hoped the loopholes exploited by proprietors of illegal schools, including a register of children not in school, will now be closed by the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill. This was announced in the 2024 King’s Speech.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘We welcome the Children Commissioner’s call for a register of children missing education. This latest report is a comprehensive investigation into the growing issue of children missing education, the limited powers available to local authorities, and the need for them to be given greater powers to tackle it.
‘We’ll be writing to the Children’s Commissioner in light of this report to share our work in this area, and we look forward to working with her office as well as Government ministers and officials to develop the proposals set out in the Children’s Wellbeing Bill.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
8 October, 2024
On Wednesday 23 October, there will be a Members’ Business debate and vote in the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament, on assisted dying for the terminally ill and incurably suffering – the first debate of its kind in a decade. Humanists UK welcomes the debate and calls for Members of the Senedd (MS) to vote in favour.
The motion has been put forward by Labour MS and Wales Humanists patron Julie Morgan, with three co-submitters from Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, and an additional five supporters. The motion calls for ‘adults of sound mind who are intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition and have a clear and settled wish to die should have the option of an assisted death, subject to robust safeguards.’
The Senedd does not have the power to change the law on assisted dying, as it is currently a matter governed by criminal law which is not devolved. However, if assisted dying were in some circumstances taken out of criminal law and made a health matter, then responsibility would transfer to the Senedd, Welsh Government, and NHS Wales. As such, it is essential that the Senedd has a say in any assisted dying law coming from Westminster. The Welsh Government needs an in-depth understanding of any proposals. Support for assisted dying in the Senedd would put pressure on Westminster to enact a change in the law across the UK.
This is a crucial opportunity for the assisted dying campaign. We strongly encourage you to get in touch with your Members of the Senedd and urge them to attend and speak in the debate, and vote for assisted dying.
We will also be hosting a rally outside the Senedd at midday on Wednesday 23 October. Please join and show your support for compassion and dignity.
‘This is a welcome opportunity for the people of Wales to express their support for freedom of choice and human dignity. We are hopeful that a debate in the Senedd will provide a further voice for the growing public support for assisted dying across the UK, and will spur a compassionate change in the law from Westminster.
‘People who are suffering deserve compassion, dignity, and choice. So far, assisted dying proposals in England and Wales have been limited to people who have six months or fewer left to live but this isn’t compassionate enough. Some adults who are suffering from conditions like multiple sclerosis aren’t terminally ill and wouldn’t be eligible. We are glad this motion in the Senedd also includes people who are intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaigner Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Cymraeg:
Dydd Mercher, 23 Hydref, cynhelir dadl a phleidlais Busnes Aelodau yn y Senedd Cymreig, ar gymorth i farw ar gyfer pobl sydd naill ai yn derfynol wael neu mewn cyflwr annioddefol anwelladwy, y ddadl gyntaf o’i bath mewn degawd. Mae Dyneiddwyr y DU yn croesawu’r ddadl ac yn galw ar Aelodau’r Senedd (ASau) i bleidleisio o blaid.
Mae’r mesur wedi ei gyflwyno gan AS Llafur a noddwr Dyneiddwyr Cymru Julie Morgan, gyda thri cyd-gyflwynydd o Blaid Cymru a’r Ceidwadwyr a phump o gefnogwyr ychwanegol. Mae’r mesur yn galw am ‘y dewis i oedolion yn eu hiawn bwyll sy’n dioddef yn annioddefol o gyflwr corfforol anwelladwy ac sy’n meddu ar ddymuniad clir a sefydlog i dderbyn cymorth i farw, yn amodol ar ddiogelwch cadarn.’
Dydy’r Senedd ddim yn meddu ar yr hawl i newid y gyfraith ar gymorth i farw, oherwydd ei fod ar hyn o bryd yn fater sydd dan gyfraith trosedd ac sydd heb ei ddatganoli. Fodd bynnag, petai cymorth i farw dan rai amgylchiadau yn cael ei dynnu allan o gyfraith trosedd a’i wneud yn fater iechyd, yna byddai cyfrifoldeb yn cael ei drosglwyddo i’r Senedd, Llywodraeth Cymru, a GIG Cymru. Felly, mae’n angenrheidiol fod y Senedd yn meddu ar hawl i ddweud eu barn ar unrhyw gyfraith cymorth i farw yn deillio o San Steffan. Mae angen i Lywodraeth Cymru gael dealltwriaeth fanwl o unrhyw gynigion. Byddai cefnogaeth i gymorth i farw yn y Senedd yn rhoi pwysau ar San Steffan i newid
y gyfraith ar draws y DU.
Ysgrifennwch at eich AS
Mae hwn yn gyfle hollbwysig i’r ymgyrch dros gymorth i farw. Rydym yn eich annog yn daer i gysylltu gyda’ch Aelodau Senedd Cymru a’u darbwyllo i fynychu a siarad yn y ddadl ac i bleidleisio dros gymorth i farw.
Dywedodd Kathy Riddick, Cydlynydd Dyneiddwyr Cymru: ‘Mae hwn yn gyfle I’w groesawu ar gyfer pobl Cymru i ddatgan eu cefnogaeth dros ryddid i ddewis ac urddas dynol. Rydym yn obeithiol gall dadl yn y Senedd ddarparu llais ychwanegol i’r gefnogaeth gyhoeddus cynyddol ar draws y DU dros gymorth i farw, ac yn ysgogi newid tosturiol yn y gyfraith o San Steffan.
‘Mae bobl sy’n dioddef yn haeddu tosturi, urddas a dewis. Hyd yn hyn, cyfyngwyd cynigion ar gymorth i farw yn Lloegr a Chymru i bobl sydd â chwe mis neu lai i fyw ond dydy hyn ddim yn ddigon tosturiol. Mae rhai oedolion sy’n dioddef o gyflyrau fel sglerosis ymledol ond ddim yn derfynol wael ddim yn gymwys. Rydym yn hapus fod y mesur hwn yn y Senedd yn cynnwys bobl sy’n dioddef yn annioddefol o gyflwr corfforol anwelladwy.’
Nodiadau: Am fwy o sylwadaeth neu wybodaeth, dylai’r cyfryngau gysylltu gydag Ymgyrchydd Cymorth i Farw Humanists UK ar nathan@humanists.uk neu ffonio ar 07456 200033 Os ydych wedi’ch effeithio gan y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol ar gymorth I farw, ac am ddefnyddio’ch stori i gefnogi newid yn y gyfraith, anfonwch e-bost at campaigns@humanists.uk.
Darllener six reasons we need an assisted dying law. Darllener mwy am our analysis of the assisted dying inquiry. Darllener mwy am ein gwaith gyfreithloni cymorth i farw yn y DU.
Humanists UK yw’r elusen genedlaethol yn gweithio ar ran bobl ddigrefydd. Gyda dros 120,000 o aelodau a chefnogwyr, rydym yn hyrwyddo rhydd-feddwl a hybu dyneiddiaeth er mwyn creu cymdeithas oddefgar lle mae meddwl rhesymegol a charedigrwydd yn goroesi. Rydym yn darparu defodau, gofal bugeiliol, addysg, a gwasanaethau cefnogol sy’n elwa dros filiwn o bobl yn flynyddol ac mae ein hymgyrchoedd yn hybu meddwl dyneiddiol ar faterion moesegol, hawliau dynol, a thriniaeth cyfartal i bawb.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
3 October, 2024
Humanists UK today welcomes the introduction of a private member’s bill on assisted dying by Kim Leadbeater MP, calling it a historic once in a generation opportunity for choice and dignity.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘Today marks the historic first step in a journey that should lead to one of the most consequential and compassionate reforms in our history, finally giving thousands of suffering people the choice and dignity they desire and deserve.
‘Parliamentarians will have in front of them vital questions about eligibility, process, and safeguards, that it will be the duty of all of society to help them address.
‘Drawing on our own decades of policy and research in this field, and on the best of the international experience of the 31 legal jurisdictions in the world that are ahead of us, we at Humanists UK look forward to supporting Kim and all legislators with this once-in-a-generation legislation.
‘Parliament owes it to the many courageous, suffering people who have fought for this change to make sure they consider as broad a range of options for the new law as possible.
‘Any assisted dying law needs to work for all the people who need it. Half of the Britons who have travelled to Switzerland for an assisted death would not have been helped by a law that is restricted to people with six months or fewer left to live.
‘Retaining such restriction, which has been a feature of previous Bills, would be a major error.’
Announcing her Bill, Kim Leadbeater MP said:
‘I know that life is precious. But no two people’s lives are the same. What is in the best interests of one person may not be right for another. I believe that we should all have the right to a good life and, where possible, a good death. Which is why this Bill is about individual choice and autonomy, something everyone one of us deserves.
‘Parliament should now be able to consider a change in the law that would offer reassurance and relief – and most importantly, dignity and choice – to people in the last months of their lives.
‘Having heard the testimonies of people who have lived through the reality of the current situation, I know what it would mean for so many to have the choice of what their final days look like. But in order to give people that choice, MPs themselves must now decide. It is a heavy responsibility and I feel that myself. But to do nothing would be a decision in itself. One that would leave too many people as they come to the end of their life continuing to suffer in often unbearable pain and fear of what is to come, denied the choice they deserve.’
Further information
Kim Leadbeater’s bill is expected to be formally introduced in the Commons on October 16 with the first full debate likely to take place later this year.
Humanists UK campaigns for the law to cover mentally competent adults who are terminally ill and also those who are suffering intolerably from incurable conditions which may not be terminal. Humanists UK also campaigns for strong safeguards to prevent abuse of any new law and make sure that only those with a genuine and settled determination for assistance are eligible.
Conditions that are incurable but may not be terminal and may lead someone to want an assisted death include those with multiple sclerosis, locked-in syndrome and Parkinson’s. Further, some terminal conditions see people suffering so much that they need an assisted death before they have six months or fewer to live, such as motor neurone disease, Huntingdon’s, and progressive supranuclear palsy. In some cases, people may lose mental capacity if forced to wait until they have six months or fewer to live before they can have an assisted death.
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033. If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
1 October, 2024
Mary Lou is a humanist school speaker based in Northern Ireland. We caught up with her to find out more about how school speakers are making a positive impact on young people’s lives by enhancing their understanding of humanism as a lived, non-religious approach to life.
Hi Mary Lou! What motivated you to become a humanist school speaker?
My own experience of school in Northern Ireland was exclusively within one religion, and I really don’t recall any suggestion that any alternative beliefs should be considered. When I returned to Northern Ireland in the early 2000s, it seemed that the system had not changed. I became a humanist school speaker because I saw an opportunity to describe a way of life – humanism – in a way that could be helpful to young people. I’ve previously worked with young people from religious backgrounds who have had difficulties with their families, so it felt more important than ever.
What was training like? How did it prepare you?
I enjoy all of the training that I do with Humanist UK. It connects me to fellow humanists, and allows for an exchange of ideas and philosophy. It was practical; full of good examples of things that may occur in the classroom or assembly hall. It is always helpful in interactions with people – whether they are adults or children – to learn from other people’s experiences. I’ve still been asked a few questions I didn’t expect, but nonetheless, the training really helped a lot. Also, sometimes you have to say to a child ‘I don’t know the answer to that’, and I think the training gives you the confidence to do that, too. It certainly supported me. I did the training on my birthday – can’t think of a better way to celebrate!
What was your first school visit like?
As with most of my visits, it was to an ‘integrated’ primary school. It is a bit unsettling to be in front of maybe 100 children in the assembly hall. The children were very engaging, and I liked how they asked questions, and wanted to know things about humanism even though they were young.
There are always – even at integrated schools – children who come from probably quite fundamentalist Christian backgrounds. These children would say things like ‘god decided’ or ‘the Bible says’. So I learned very early on to say that everyone’s beliefs are important to them, and we’re all different. I came away wishing I’d done some things differently, such as trying to draw a Happy Human symbol [Editor’s note: You can download those resources for your classroom here]. which was interpreted by one child as an angel. You can’t argue with a 5-year-old who sees something like that. I also took away from that a great appreciation of integrated education, and a real sense of enjoyment in the company of children.
Do you think it’s particularly important for Northern Ireland to have humanist school speakers?
I think it is imperative that the service is provided to schools in Northern Ireland. We can be a somewhat insular people, and I believe that for young people to have exposure to ideas and thoughts and different ways of being is very important. We have a long history in some parts of our communities of bigotry. It’s therefore important to spread tolerance as far as possible. It is somewhat depressing that so few visits here are by humanist speakers. I hope that we can persuade teachers that this is a way for children to consider a broad range of beliefs. I would encourage other humanists to speak in schools. It is so satisfying to present an alternative to young people. Teachers love to have you and the students are a delight. You arrive home with a smile on your face – best way to start the day!
What resonates with you most about the humanist approach to life?
It is respectful of each human being and encourages self-reflection and the development of one‘s own approach to living. I have always held a strong belief in connection and that it underpins all human life, so I strongly appreciate the campaigning work of Humanists UK. All humans are important regardless of whether we can see them right in front of us or not, humanity depends on caring for one another. There’s also a joy in humanism which is appropriate given the odds against any of us being here at all.
Want to make a difference in your local schools? Become a humanist school speaker! Find our more here and join our introductory session on Tuesday 15 October 15. Sign up today.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
30 September, 2024
Discussions about assisted dying laws are full of jargon and technical phrases. Let’s try to explain two of them – perhaps the most important pair.
Generally speaking, assisted dying laws determine eligibility for patients based on either terminal illness or incurable suffering. And there are different definitions of these terms within different laws.
At Humanists UK, we believe that an adult of sound mind who is intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition and has a clear and settled wish to die should have the option of an assisted death. That is true whether someone is terminally ill or incurably suffering. Being able to die, with dignity, in a manner of our choosing should be understood as a fundamental human right.
Terminal illness
The meaning of ‘terminal illness’ varies between assisted dying bills/laws across the UK, USA, New Zealand, and Australia.
In the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill [HL], which has been proposed in the House of Lords, terminal illness refers to diagnosed conditions which will inevitably worsen but cannot be reversed by treatment. Assisted dying is only available for when such conditions are expected to cause the death of the patient within six months. This does not include any disabilities or mental illnesses. Even if treatment can relieve some symptoms of the condition, if it cannot cure the condition, then it is still considered terminal.
Scotland’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill uses ‘terminally ill’ slightly differently. According to this bill, an eligible patient must ‘have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.’ The Scottish approach is more compassionate for people suffering from conditions like Parkinson’s, Huntington’s and motor neurone disease because a doctor may not be sure that the person has less than six months left to live. In other cases, by the time a person does have six months left to live, that person may have lost mental capacity, or they may have suffered for months or even years beyond what they would wish.
There are different approaches to ‘terminal illness’ in other jurisdictions, for example, some require the condition to be expected to cause the patient’s death within twelve months rather than six. The crucial point is that a terminal illness is always an incurable condition that is expected to cause the patient’s death.
Incurable suffering
In many countries people are eligible for assisted dying if they are deemed to have intolerable and incurable suffering.
The Belgian Act defines incurable suffering as a ‘medically hopeless state of persistent and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be alleviated and which is the result of a serious and incurable condition’.
Canada’s Bill C-7 defines this as ‘grievous and irremediable’ diagnosed conditions.
The language we use is ‘intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition’.
Definitions vary but generally, incurable suffering refers to those patients with physical conditions that cause them constant unbearable mental or physical suffering and lack any likely chance of improvement. This includes conditions like locked-in syndrome and multiple sclerosis.
Humanists UK’s stance
We wholeheartedly support assisted dying for the terminally ill. We also support it for those who are incurably suffering because they have the most suffering ahead of them and therefore are some of those who most desperately need a change in the law.
We also support assisted dying for the incurably suffering. The legal battles of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lambwere the most important in UK assisted dying law, yet neither Tony nor Paul would be eligible for an assisted death under the legislation that just focuses on the terminally ill. This is because their suffering, while unbearable, was not terminal.
Tony Nicklinson suffered from locked-in syndrome which meant he was paralysed below the neck and could not speak; he described his life as a ‘living nightmare’. Paul Lamb was in a car accident that left him paralysed below the neck and in chronic pain. Tony took his right-to-die case to the High Court, but died shortly after he lost. Paul continued Tony’s legacy of activism and, along with Tony’s wife Jane, took their case to the Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court. They lost their legal battles because the courts determined it to be an issue for Parliament.
It is time for politicians to act. A compassionate change in the law should not discriminate against people like Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, it should rectify the injustice they faced and grant the incurably suffering autonomy and dignity in their deaths.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaigner Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
27 September, 2024
Pictured: Faith Minister Lord Khan speaking at Humanists UK’s World Humanist Day celebration, US Embassy, London.
Humanists UK welcomes the Government’s recent clarification that the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims’ proposed definition of Islamophobia is ‘not in line’ with the Equality Act 2010. This important statement was made by Faith Minister Lord Khan in a letter to the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO).
Humanists UK had previously expressed concern about the definition for its failure to distinguish between prejudice against people and legitimate criticism of beliefs. The Government’s statement, confirming that the definition ‘is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality, and national or ethnic origins’ addresses a key issue Humanists UK has highlighted. The letter also emphasises the importance of free speech, asserting that the Government’s approach to combating religious hatred ‘would never inhibit the lawful right to freedom of expression’, including the freedom to discuss and critique religion.
The definition proposed by the APPG for British Muslims states that ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’ However, Humanists UK believes that this definition (and in particular the tests proposed alongside it) requires improvement because it does not sufficiently differentiate between (i) prejudice and discriminatory actions against people who identify or are identified as Muslim, and (ii) criticism of the beliefs, ideas, and practices that might fall under the umbrella of Islam. It poses a risk to legitimate freedom of speech and thought and of religion or belief and it also threatens to give inadvertent succour to extreme Islamic groups abroad, including some Islamic states at the UN who use accusations of Islamophobia to silence criticisms of the human rights abuses they perpetrate.
It also fails to consider the impact upon former Muslims, for whom being able to question, criticise, and openly oppose Quranic teachings and expressions of Muslimness can be an important aspect of their identity, help them to come to terms with religious abuse they may have experienced, and is a legitimate expression of their new religion or belief. Humanists UK provides a dedicated helpline for people who have experienced violence, shunning, or ostracism for questioning or leaving a religion.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘We are concerned that the proposed definition of Islamophobia fails to protect individuals from discrimination while also safeguarding the right to critique harmful beliefs and practices. We are pleased that the Government has recognised this and opted for an approach more consistent with the principles of free speech and equality.’
Prejudice against Muslims in the UK is widespread and must be addressed. Humanists UK has worked to tackle such prejudice by supporting the introduction of the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006; by conducting extensive dialogue work with Muslim groups; and by speaking out repeatedly against atrocities experienced by Muslims on grounds of their identity around the world, including in relation to the recent riots.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
24 September, 2024
Humanists UK and Labour Humanists hosted a packed-out fringe event at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool on Monday night, with the reception room overflowing with delegates wanting to hear from Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson and a panel of humanist MPs and peers.
The tone of the evening was upbeat but uncomplacent – encouraging delegates at the party conference to get involved as members, volunteers, and campaigners, or by writing to their local MP, as a number of opportunities in the King’s Speech and elsewhere had given MPs renewed confidence that a number of longstanding humanist reforms could be addressed in the current parliamentary term.
Rachel Hopkins MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG), spoke first. She came over buoyant and optimistic, citing the many possible opportunities in the new Parliament to affect positive social and legal change, and the swelling numbers of the APPHG following an election which returned a historic number of non-religious MPs (40%). She told delegates that she would continue to champion urgent action onhumanist marriage in England and Wales, given Labour’s repeated promises in Opposition to grant legal recognition if elected, the court case pointing to a human rights breach here, and a lack of practical or financial barriers to doing so.
Next to speak was Lord Alf Dubs, who chose to focus his remarks on the importance of an upcoming Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying, which the Prime Minister has promised to give enough time to potentially pass through both Houses of Parliament. ‘Although we have a large number of MPs,’ he said, ‘it doesn’t mean they all agree with us. The opposition is vocal, and it’s up to us to make sure the truth is heard.’
Immigration Minister Angela EagleMP then spoke about the ongoing work of humanists inside and outside of Parliament in relation to a number of campaigns, and the historic opportunity now before parliamentarians to realise several long-standing humanist ambitions. Praising Humanists UK’s policy team for their diligent campaigning and high-quality briefings, she finished by saying ‘It’s important for humanists to continue asserting that we can contribute to society without a belief in a higher power. We respect religious people, even if we don’t share their beliefs. More power to your elbow!’
Ruth Cadbury MP, who identifies as a Quaker and a humanist, also emphasised the importance of rallying around the upcoming Private Member’s Bill. She also touched on the possibilities offered by the newly founded House of Commons Modernisation Committee, which will look at archaic practices in the Commons. She pointed out how the outdated practice of using attendance at Anglican parliamentary prayers to reserve limited seats in the House of Commons was seen as an increasingly big problem, given Labour’s large new intake of non-religious MPs who naturally want to take part in debates, only to find they cannot claim a seat and therefore cannot be called to speak.
Closing the panel was Wales Office Minister Dame Nia Griffith MP,who gave a rousing speech on the various prospects in the next few years to achieve humanist campaign aims, including possibly removing bishops from the House of Lordsvia Labour’s promised consultation on wide-reaching Lords reform. She said the Government was also committed to curriculum reform and to a full and enforceable ban on harmful anti-LGBT conversion practices. She closed her remarks by saying that, after years of intensifying divisive rhetoric in politics and society, humanists had a special role in conducting themselves respectfully and bringing the country together: ‘Our message of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion is so important.’
Across the conference, Humanists UK spoke to dozens of MPs as well as peers, councillors, Assembly Members, Members of the Senedd, and Members of the Scottish Parliament, receiving enthusiastic support from across the party on its two key issues at this year’s conference – humanist marriage and the right to die for the incurably suffering.
Labour Humanists, the party-political humanist group within Labour affiliated to Humanists UK, co-hosted Monday night’s reception and received a surge in new supporters, eager to take up the challenge of promoting humanism within the new party of government.
Humanists UK attends all the major party conferences to meet with parliamentarians, to advocate for humanist issues, and to engage with our party-political members and supporters. We were also at the Lib Dem and Green conferences and will be at the Conservative Conference.
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
19 September, 2024
Pictured: Pragna Patel [top left], Zara Kay [top right], Dr Kristin Aune [middle right], bottom row left to right: Alexander Barnes-Ross, Yehudis Fletcher, Rachael Reign, Dr James Murphy
Leading experts in the impact of religious abuse and religious trauma will convene in October for a specially organised conference from Humanists UK – the Faith to Faithless Apostasy Conference 2024: The Systemic Nature of Religious Abuse.
The conference offers a unique opportunity to learn about the mechanisms of religious abuse and its lasting impact. The assembled experts will specifically look at the trauma suffered by so-called ‘apostates’ – people who leave high-control religious communities – which can result from abusive behaviours which range from shunning, domestic violence, and coercive control through to so-called ‘honour-based’ violence, which can include sexual violence and attempted murder.
The event has been organised by the expert team behind Faith to Faithless, Humanists UK’s specialist service supporting ex-religious people coping with religious trauma and loss of community. This year’s event will be live-streamed on Wednesday 9 October from 10:00 to 16:00.
‘The high prevalence and varied forms of religious abuse in the UK today, not just sexual abuse, is not widely known or appreciated. It is weekly that we hear from survivors of domestic abuse for example, who are told by religious leaders that the solution for their suffering is that they need to be ‘more submissive’ or ‘better wives’. Former members who speak out have too often been ignored or labelled as ‘bitter’ in the past.’
‘And it isn’t just within the small ‘cult-like’ religions, we are seeing various forms of abuse and cover-up, we often see this within more established faith groups too. Therefore, I’m excited that at last we have so many experts speaking out, not just about the abuse itself, but also the systemic nature of the abuse and how sadly some UK state structures can sometimes cover-up, or even promote it.
Terri O’Sullivan – Humanists UK’s Apostate Services Development Officer
Conference overview
Renowned feminist activist and founder of Southall Black Sisters Pragna Patel will deliver the conference’s keynote address, bringing her extensive knowledge of issues of justice, equality, women’s rights, and religious fundamentalism, and her particular expertise on these issues in a South Asian context. Her insights are expected to shed light on the pervasive and often hidden forms of religious abuse in the UK.
Other speakers include former Scientologist Alexander Barnes-Ross, Nahamu founder Yehudis Fletcher, researcher Dr Kristin Aune from the Centre for Peace and Security at Coventry University, researcher Dr James Murphy from the Open University, Rachel Reign from Survivors Universal UK, which advocates for leavers of the ‘cult-like’ Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG), and Zara Kay founder of Faithless Hijabi which provides mental health support for ex-Muslims around the world.
Expert research and first-hand testimony
The conference will explore how some religious systems not only create environments conducive to abuse but also promote it, using religious doctrines and leadership to shield these practices from accountability. Abuse – sometimes framed as morally right in certain religious contexts – is often normalised and covered up in ways that harm individuals and communities.
The event will be divided into two subthemes:
Religions and rape culture – This theme will focus on how some religious doctrines and leadership create and promote ‘rape culture’ and the far-reaching impacts this may have on those who leave those religions.
Failures of the state – This second theme will investigate how UK state policies may obscure or even facilitate various forms of religious abuse in ways that push vulnerable people further away from the support agencies they may need.
This conference is designed for academics, activists, therapists, human services professionals, such as those working in charities or social services, and policymakers. Those working in relevant fields can count their attendance towards their continued professional development (CPD) requirements.
It is also open to anyone in the general public with an interest in understanding (and addressing) the issue of religious abuse, or in supporting vulnerable individuals leaving high-control religious environments.
Tickets are available for £10 for the general public or professional service providers, with free admission for people who have left high-control religions. Book your place now.
An online conference for academics and practitioners who care about the needs of apostates. The theme of the Apostasy Conference 2024 is ‘The Systemic Nature of Religious Abuse’
Notes
About Faith to Faithless
Faith to Faithless is the Humanists UK programme dedicated to providing specialist support to apostates. As well as providing a national helpline, it supports apostates through a programme of peer support facilitated by trained specialist volunteers, and provides awareness training to public services, including NHS divisions and police forces.
Faith to Faithless operates under a stringent safeguarding policy, prioritising the safety and wellbeing of all those reaching out for support.
Contact information
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 020 3675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 130,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International has warned UN human rights investigators of the challenges of traditional, historical, religious and cultural attitudes
The statement was delivered by Humanists International’s European Advocacy Officer, Tania Giacomuzzi Mota by video. The statement was made at the Annual Panel Discussion on the integration of a gender perspective throughout the work of the Human Rights Council and that of its mechanisms. The topic this year was “enhancing gender integration in human rights investigations: a victim-centred perspective. “Previous topics have included “gender-responsive initiatives to accelerate gender equality” and “gender digital divide in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The statement noted that one of the drivers of human rights abuses against women, and the subsequent lack of self-reporting of such abuses, is the instrumentalization of the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). Traditional, historical, religious and cultural attitudes often stand in the way of women’s self-reporting of the abuse they suffer.
In Humanists International’s work protecting humanists-at-risk, this phenomenon is often seen, with many women who reach out to the organization citing control in the home as a major risk. They often lack independent access to the internet and they face stigma and taboo depending on the nature of the abuse.
The statement called on the United Nation’s human rights investigators to be aware of this challenge. Those conducting investigations should make themselves aware of the right to FoRB, and what it does and doesn’t cover, the statement urged. The panelists, all of whom have been members of United Nations investigations, discussed the barriers they have faced in their work, as well as strategies to strengthen the integration of a victim-centered approach through the conduct of trauma-informed interviews.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
In a joint statement made at the UN Human Rights Council, the Humanists International and ETHOS Slovakia have called for the protection of reproductive rights, LGBTI+ rights, and children’s rights
The statement was delivered by Andrej Lúčny, Chairman of ETHOS, an Associate organization of Humanists International. Lúčny made the intervention via video at the 57th session of the Human Rights Council during the adoption of Slovakia’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)* report. The organizations called attention to numerous human rights issues within Slovakia.
A portion of the statement also focused on abuses committed by members of the Catholic Church, which have only been recognized in Slovakia recently. While there is a Children’s Ombudsman in Slovakia, with the mandate to protect children’s rights, the current office-holder has links to religious groups, which Lúčny called attention to, as well as his comments on corporal punishment and LGBTI+ individuals. ETHOS have previously written to the Ombudsman, and in reply, he noted his office’s limited competencies.
Lúčny concluded by noting the range of issues in Slovakia which are undermining democracy and the rule of law, including corruption, changes to the criminal code, and the abolition of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, as well as crackdowns on press freedom. The statement jointly delivered by ETHOS and Humanists International was one of only two statements delivered at the UPR Adoption by non-governmental organizations.
*The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a UN process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States, by each other. It is a unique human rights mechanism in so far as it addresses all countries and all human rights. The Working Group on the UPR, which is composed of the Human Rights Council’s 47 Member States and chaired by the Human Rights Council President, conducts country reviews. Humanists International supports its members in engagement with the process.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
In a joint statement made at the UN Human Rights Council, the Humanist Society of New Zealand, the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, and Humanists International have commended progress on human rights issues in New Zealand, while warning against risks to advancements
The statement was delivered by Mark Honeychurch, Vice President of the Humanists Society of New Zealand, a member organisation of Humanists International. Honeychurch made the intervention via video at the 57th session of the Human Rights Council during the adoption of New Zealand’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)* report. The organizations welcomed New Zealand’s stated intention to strengthen migrant’s rights and to improve legislation on gender-based violence.
While the statement noted the important areas of progress committed to by New Zealand, it also highlighted some recent moves by the Government which could put its stated commitments at risk. These include the reduction in function of Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People, and of the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. Honeychurch added, “The Government’s commitment in the UPR to achieving equity in health outcomes should not leave behind Māori or those with disabilities.”
Mark Honeychurch delivers the statement by video
Much of the statement focused on the need to enumerate rights in order to protect them. There is currently an ongoing Law Commission review in New Zealand, looking at sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, as prohibited grounds of discrimination. The organizations called for the explicit inclusion of these characteristics as protected under the Human Rights Act. They also called on the State to be open to dialogue on the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in the Bill of Rights Act, in order to safeguard them from rollback.
Finally, the statement called on the Government to safeguard Māori rights by considering a review of the legal status of the Treaty of Waitangi and recommitting to ratifying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There has been little movement on this since 2022.
*The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a UN process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States, by each other. It is a unique human rights mechanism in so far as it addresses all countries and all human rights. The Working Group on the UPR, which is composed of the Human Rights Council’s 47 Member States and chaired by the Human Rights Council President, conducts country reviews. Humanists International supports its members in engagement with the process.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have called for investigations into killings and protections for secular bloggers and religious minorities
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Ahmedur Tutul Chowdhury, on behalf of Humanists International, called on the interim government of Bangladesh to investigate human rights abuses and to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. His statement, delivered during a General Debate, focused on the killing of protestors and the persecution of secular bloggers and religious minorities.
The statement highlighted the need for accountability following the deaths of hundreds of protestors, many of whom were allegedly killed by police in extrajudicial actions. He urged the interim government to investigate these human rights violations and hold the perpetrators accountable.
Tutul delivers the statement by video
As Bangladesh faces a period of political transition, the statement emphasized the importance of including diverse voices in governmental reforms. This is a critical moment for Bangladesh to ensure that the rights of all its citizens are protected. Key among these rights, he noted, is freedom of expression, which includes the right to criticize political parties and policies without fear of retribution.
Tutul’s statement noted the increasing persecution being faced by religious minorities, and called for Bangladesh to ensure it did not return to an era of violence which saw state persecution and extrajudicial killings of secular blogger. Tutul, himself, fled Bangladesh in 2016, after attempts were made on his life.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned Burundi’s persecution of women, LGBTI+ individuals, and restrictions on press freedom as the country seeks a seat on the UN Human Rights Council
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International voiced serious concerns about the state of human rights in Burundi. In a statement delivered by Peter Dankwa of the Humanist Association of Ghana, they called for immediate action to address violations, particularly regarding women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights, and freedom of expression. The intervention followed a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Burundi, which documented widespread human rights abuses.
Dankwa’s statement highlighted the worrying use of religion to justify discriminatory laws and rhetoric in the country. The statement condemned the instrumentalization of Christianity in shaping state policies that curtail the rights of marginalized communities, particularly LGBTI+ individuals. One of the most egregious examples cited was the dehumanizing language used by President Évariste Ndayishimiye, who called for the stoning of LGBTI+ people.
Peter Dankwa delivers the statement by video
In addition to targeting LGBTI+ individuals, Burundi has seen a renewed crackdown on so-called “cohabitation laws”, which criminalize informal living arrangements between unmarried couples. Dankwa reported that this has resulted in the forced displacement of at least 900 women and 3,600 children from their homes, primarily in the north of the country. This policy has been linked to a broader governmental push for moral purity, which has seen an increase in human rights violations perpetrated by state authorities.
Finally, Dankwa concluded his statement by urging the Special Rapporteur to address the role of religious fundamentalism in Burundi’s legal system. He questioned how the international community can ensure that religious ideologies do not shape laws that violate human rights, especially in a country facing political instability and a multidimensional humanitarian crisis.
Delivery of this statement followed the signing of a joint letter alongside over 35 other Non-Governmental Organizations which raised some of the same issues, and called for the exetention of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned Venezuela’s crackdown on activists and called for international scrutiny of the country’s elections
Humanists International has raised alarm over the escalating repression of civil society and political activists in Venezuela. Leon Langdon, the organization’s Advocacy Officer, delivered a statement during the Interactive Dialogue with the International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela at the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. His statement criticized the Venezuelan government’s increasingly harsh tactics, including the harassment, criminalization, and arrest of activists and human rights defenders.
The Fact-Finding Mission’s report documented a severe crackdown on civilian protestors following the contested elections, revealing that police and military forces have played a key role in suppressing demonstrations. This suppression is part of what the Mission has termed the “repressive apparatus” of the Venezuelan state, which has been activated to silence opposition. The election results, widely regarded as fraudulent, have been condemned by several international organizations, including the Organization of American States (OAS), while the opposition leader has been forced into exile.
The statement also called attention to the documentation of the use of sexual violence as a method of repression and torture in Venezuela. Given all of the outlined abuses, Humanists International also called for a renewal of the mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission.
This statement followed a Resolution of the Humanists International General Assembly, passed at the beginning of September 2024. The Resolution was passed on an emergency basis due to the recent elections in the country, and the subsequent violence, and expressed concern about the human rights abuses reported in the country.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Among the key proposals outlined in the letter is the development of a European Civil Society Strategy as part of a broader European Democracy Agenda. Such a strategy is necessary to ensure a coherent policy framework that recognises and supports the diverse roles of civil society in fostering democratic engagement and promoting human rights. Furthermore, it calls for the appointment of a dedicated Commission Vice President for democracy, civic space, and dialogue with civil society, with the authority to lead the implementation of the strategy and respond swiftly to attacks on civic actors.
Additionally, the letter advocates for the establishment of a Civil Dialogue Agreement between EU institutions and civil society, ensuring permanent and meaningful interaction between policymakers and CSOs.
Another central demand is the improvement of EU funding policies for civil society, calling for a reduction in administrative burdens and an increase in the budget for the Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values Programme (CERV).
Finally, the letter highlights the need for a stronger role for the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) as a key European human rights institution, with the capacity to issue opinions on EU policies and play a more central role in policy impact assessments.
Tania Giacomuzzi Mota, European Advocacy Officer at Humanists International affirmed:
Humanists International stands firmly with fellow civil society organisations in urging the EU to adopt these recommendations and create a more robust framework for supporting civil society.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned the systematic rollback of women’s rights and called for global action on gender persecution in Afghanistan
Humanists International called on the international community to continue applying pressure on the Taliban to reverse discriminatory laws and practices targeting women and girls in Afghanistan. Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer for Humanists International, delivered the statement during the General Debate at the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the severe human rights violations that have occurred since the Taliban’s takeover in 2021.
The statement responded to the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and supported numerous requests contained therein, including the call on the Taliban to respect international human rights law and the rights of women and girls. Humanists International, however, lamented the fact that the term “gender apartheid” was not used in the High Commissioner’s Report. This language was used in a report by the Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls.
In spite of the deteriorating human rights situation, Humanists International called for continued two-way engagement on the humanitarian front. The Taliban have routinely curtailed access to outside actors since its takeover in 2021, while the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that in 2024, 23.7 million people, including 5.9 million women and 5.4 million men, require humanitarian aid. Continued humanitarian funding and access is critical.
This statement followed a vote of Humanists International’s General Assembly in Singapore at the beginning of the month, which called on the Taliban to respect international human rights law, allow access to outside human rights and humanitarian monitors, and to safeguard the rights of women and girls.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned the systematic rollback of women’s rights and called for global action on gender persecution in Afghanistan
Humanists International called on the international community to continue applying pressure on the Taliban to reverse discriminatory laws and practices targeting women and girls in Afghanistan. Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer for Humanists International, delivered the statement during the General Debate at the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the severe human rights violations that have occurred since the Taliban’s takeover in 2021.
The statement responded to the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and supported numerous requests contained therein, including the call on the Taliban to respect international human rights law and the rights of women and girls. Humanists International, however, lamented the fact that the term “gender apartheid” was not used in the High Commissioner’s Report. This language was used in a report by the Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls.
In spite of the deteriorating human rights situation, Humanists International called for continued two-way engagement on the humanitarian front. The Taliban have routinely curtailed access to outside actors since its takeover in 2021, while the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that in 2024, 23.7 million people, including 5.9 million women and 5.4 million men, require humanitarian aid. Continued humanitarian funding and access is critical.
This statement followed a vote of Humanists International’s General Assembly in Singapore at the beginning of the month, which called on the Taliban to respect international human rights law, allow access to outside human rights and humanitarian monitors, and to safeguard the rights of women and girls.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International has delivered a statement outlining the increasing intolerance toward the non-religious
Humanists International called attention to the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, focusing on the increasing intolerance toward religious minorities, including the non-religious. The statement was delivered by Leon Langdon, the organization’s Advocacy Officer, during the Interactive Dialogue on the Written Update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Sri Lanka.
The statement highlighted several concerning legislative measures employed by the Sri Lankan government to suppress dissent. He noted the misuse of laws like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the Online Safety Act. These laws grant the government broad enforcement powers, which can be used with minimal judicial oversight. The statement also pointed to the troubling establishment of a special police task force on religious freedom, citing arrests made for “insulting” religion, in violation of international standards on freedom of religion or belief.
Humanists International Advocacy Officer, Leon Langdon, delivers the statement by video.
In recent years, Sri Lanka has seen a rise in nationalist and fundamentalist rhetoric from political leaders, exacerbating the climate of intolerance. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), originally enacted to combat insurgencies, has been criticized internationally for allowing indefinite detention without trial. Amendments proposed to the PTA have not alleviated concerns regarding its sweeping and potentially abusive provisions.
Humanists International last highlighted the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as part of the country’s Universal Periodic Review in 2023.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Explore This Week’s Dispatch
This week’s Unbelief Brief looks at an attack on secularism in India, how a Pakistani cleric gets a taste of his own medicine and examines yet another police killing of a suspected blasphemer in Pakistan.
EXMNA Insights covers the importance of recognizing International Blasphemy Day for ex-Muslims.
The Unbelief Brief
India is reminding us once again that Islamic countries are not the only places with budding would-be theocracies—an issue that has become increasingly more common through the years. RN Ravi, governor of the state of Tamil Nadu, has flatly stated that India has “no need” for secularism. While these remarks have proven controversial and been met with backlash, they are a reminder of the very strong Hindu nationalist movement inculcated under Prime Minister Modi which has been fervently trying to impose its own mirror image of Islamic theocracy on the country.
In neighboring Pakistan, meanwhile, one cleric who has enthusiastically expressed his support for the execution of blasphemers—even when the suspected blasphemer apologizes—has discovered that theocracy can place the shoe on the other foot. After remarking that the Prophet was illiterate, did not actually write the Qur’an himself, and relied on others to write it for him, leading to imperfections (!) such as grammatical mistakes, Mufti Tariq Masood has been forced into hiding. He has since apologized; presumably, his old stance on what should be done with blasphemers does not apply in this special instance. One does wonder how such an apparently well-educated man came to the conclusion that it was okay to suggest that the infallible, incorruptible Qur’an contains flaws of any kind. All the best to the beleaguered cleric…
Finally, yet another blasphemy killing in Pakistan—but this one is noteworthy in that the state is taking a modicum of responsibility for its injustice, especially considering it was perpetrated by police officers, the second such incident in a week. The state has even made clear that the family of the victim, a doctor by the name of Shah Nawaz Kumbhar, may file charges against the officers responsible for his death. Prior to the family leveling the accusation of murder against the police, later confirmed as truthful by authorities, police had concocted a story of a “shootout” in order to cover it up. Perhaps owing to the overt and offensive abuse of power laying the injustice bare, protestors numbering in the thousands have taken to the streets to demand justice for the doctor. We join those calls and reiterate that justice for every single victim of Islamic countries’ barbaric blasphemy laws is imperative.
EXMNA Insights
Yesterday marked International Blasphemy Day. In countries with harsh penalties for religious critique, anti-blasphemy laws are dangerous and oppressive tools used against dissenters like ex-Muslims. These laws reveal an insecurity within religious authorities who treat any criticism as a direct threat to their dominance. In countries like Pakistan, where blasphemy is punishable by death, individuals like Asia Bibi have spent years facing the prospect of execution for alleged offenses, often based on weak or fabricated evidence. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are also infamous for being misused to settle personal scores or silence minorities, a natural consequence of implementing criminal charges on such arbitrary offenses.
Iran is another prime example of extreme blasphemy punishments, where in 2023, two men were executed for running online accounts promoting atheism. Their crime? Daring to challenge the state’s religious narrative. This trend extends to Saudi Arabia, where blasphemy is often treated as apostasy, with death as a possible sentence for those who question or criticize Islam.
Even in Indonesia, where democracy is more robust, blasphemy laws are used to stifle dissent. In one instance, a high school religious teacher was sentenced to prison for merely whistling during prayers, considered a deviant act by local authorities. Similarly, Malaysia enforces strict penalties for those who diverge from the official religious doctrine, with punishments including caning and imprisonment for so-called “deviant” beliefs.
Blasphemy laws are not about protecting religious sensibilities—they are about maintaining religious and political control. When a religion needs laws to punish dissenters with fines, imprisonment, or death, it speaks volumes about its fragility. These inhumane laws create a climate of fear, silencing not just critics but also those who might consider thinking differently. They crush any possibility of pluralism or diversity of thought, essential ingredients for a vibrant, just society. Instead of fostering dialogue, they criminalize ideas, turning religion into an untouchable institution that cannot be questioned, let alone reformed. The global community must urgently call for the abolition of these archaic laws to protect human rights and ensure freedom of thought.
Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA) stands firmly against these oppressive laws, advocating for the right to religious dissent. EXMNA supports the freedom to critique, question, and even mock religion, viewing it as essential to human rights and freedom of expression. Religious beliefs, like any other ideology, should be open to scrutiny, and EXMNA fights to protect that right for all.
Persecution Tracker Updates
Read our full entry on the police killing of Dr. Shah Nawaz Kumbhar here. Also: another “arrested for insulting the Prophet” case has been logged in Pakistan here—this one directed against a former employee of the Pakistan Senate.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
The Dispatch Returns with New Insights
This week’s Unbelief Brief exposes the harsh realities faced by women and dissenters in the Netherlands, Iran and Malaysia.
The Unbelief Brief
In the Netherlands, police have noted an increase in “honor violence” over the last decade. Reports of honor-based violence peaked at 619 incidents in 2023, which is an increase of 35% from the previous ten years when there were a reported 460 incidents. Victims are overwhelmingly women but members of the LGBT+ communities are also disproportionately affected. A quarter of all incidents of honor-based violence involved victims or perpetrators from Syria, with others from Turkey, Morocco and Afghanistan. It goes without saying that Muslimsare not inherently or intrinsically more likely to be violent or misogynistic. This is a result of a religious culture rooted in archaic doctrines that crystallize violence against women and the queer community. As a result of these social mores, almost two women per day— Muslim victims of their own religion—are subject to violence in the Netherlands for attempting to exercise greater autonomy than conservative Islam idealizes for them.
Over in Iran: some journalists and students are reporting that the government is apparently deactivating their cell phones’ SIM cards. This seems to be in response to engaging in any form of political dissent, such as simply posting “political content,” which the regime deems propagandistic. One journalist reported contacting the government and being told that due to “political activity” in his past, he would need to go through a bureaucratic process which would include the signing of a pledge to cease all such activities—and only then could his service be restored. The theocracy continues to display open contempt for its people, still hounded by the shadow of Mahsa Amini’s death and the cries for change she evoked from the Iranian people.
Finally, in Malaysia, a grave development: yet another customer insulted Islam on a fast food receipt. This disturbing incident comes on the heels of a similar case that occurred in May of this year, where blasphemous comments appeared on a Domino’s receipt. That case resulted in the arrest of four “foreigners” suspected of committing the heinous offense, which is perhaps becoming common enough to warrant its own designation: “receipt blasphemy.” As was previously the case, the Malaysian police are pressing ahead with an aggressive investigation, showing their priorities are laser-focused on the “crimes” that really matter.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
World Teachers Day is celebrated on October 5th. “Yay! But, I don’t know any teachers, have children, or work in education.” It can feel daunting, listening to the pleas of millions of teachers across the country begging for respect and support but not knowing where to begin. This article will give a brief overview of some struggles of classroom teachers and then outline three ways that any humanist can support teachers for World Teachers Day.
Teaching is an incredibly difficult jobs. There are infinite tasks, expectations, and distractions to compete with. Additionally, teachers are required to coordinate and collaborate with students, peers, administration, and parents to meet the needs of everyone, but often aren’t trusted as professionals in their own space. Aside from caring about teachers because they are people, we as a community should celebrate and support them because they are the foundation of the future. They plant educational seeds in students whose careers will blossom years without teachers ever seeing the fruits of their labor.
The first and perhaps most direct way that any humanist can support teachers is by volunteering. The easiest way to sign up to volunteer is by searching the school district’s homepage and looking for the volunteer sign-up. This will likely require a content form to complete a background check. If everything works out, you may be given a list of volunteer tasks: tasks like speaking to students about your career path, becoming a reading buddy, assisting a teacher in the classroom, doing campus clean-up projects, or tutoring, for example. Additionally, you may want to volunteer for specific events like fundraisers, sporting events, and chaperoning for field trips.
Another direct way that humanists can support teachers is through donations. Just like volunteering, there are a plethora of ways to donate. If you know a teacher or there is a school near you, you may want to reach out to the teacher you have in mind or to office support staff to donate things like deodorant, toothpaste, book bags, canned food, water bottles, or educational school supplies. Some districts may also have a free educational resource center for teachers. If you prefer virtual donations, try DonorsChoose, Adopt A Teacher, or search for #ClearTheList on social media.
Lastly, use your voice and vote to advocate for teachers. Often, many of the frustrations that teachers have cannot be fixed by one person. Instead, unified advocates must stand together and work toward legislative change. Teachers most commonly ask for higher salaries, lower student-teacher ratios, and more control over their classroom content. This election year is important for teachers because of Project 2025 (read our article about Project 2025’s treatment of public education) and with a former teacher running for Vice President. While you are at the polls standing with teachers federally, please do not forget to vote locally, as well, for elected officials important to teachers, including school board candidates.
It is so important to help support teachers this World Teachers Day. I listed off just three ways to do it: volunteer, donate, and advocate. There are many more ways to make effective changes over time. However, the most important way is to start somewhere. When we support our teachers, the whole world benefits.
Jessica Brooks is a Black, queer, humanist who is passionate about the history and celebration of marginalized peoples. She currently is a middle school Social Studies teacher in North Carolina.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
The American Humanist Association is proud to announce the launch of its largest voter engagement campaign ever: the Democracy Not Theocracy campaign. The campaign will educate voters about the threat of Project 2025 and encourage them to register and make a plan to vote.
Democracy Not Theocracy is composed of a few major components:
hiring current and recently-graduated Democracy Defense Fellows who will organize on campus and in their communities.
Project 2025 is the far-right plan to reshape democracy, seize and consolidate executive powers, and completely upend separation of church and state, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, racial justice, free speech, and many other democratic institutions and freedoms. The comprehensive plan would touch every department of the federal government and fundamentally reshape the lives of the American people.
Fish Stark, the AHA’s new Executive Director, announced the Democracy Not Theocracy campaign on the first evening of the AHA’s 83rd Annual Conference this past weekend:
“Project 2025 threatens our fundamental freedoms, so we’re giving humanists everywhere the tools to fight back. Buckle up – we’ve got a democracy to save. We’re humanists. We believe everyone has the freedom to seek their own truth and no one should be forced to live according to someone else’s religion. We believe in respecting the equal worth of every person. And we believe in challenging the powerful to speak up for what’s right. White Christian Nationalists are trying to divide our country and convince people to choose theocracy over democracy. But we know which side we’re on. So today, we’re launching our Democracy, Not Theocracy campaign, a national effort to empower humanists to resist Project 2025.
“…Let’s show the world just how much humanists value democracy, not theocracy. How much we value treating everyone equally, not demonizing people who are different. How much we value freedom for all people, not forcing people to live under religious law. This is a stance that we know a majority of Americans can unite behind. Because Project 2025 is about more than politics—it’s about control. Control over your body, your family, your education, your life. Here’s the thing—this November, YOU hold the power. The power to vote, the power to speak out, the power to stop this.”
The AHA has created a step-by-step guide for anyone interested in hosting Postcarding Parties (or parties of one!) that raise awareness about Project 2025. Specifically, participants will be provided with postcards with anti-Project-2025 messaging and provided with contacts who have not registered to vote. Anyone can participate in postcarding, and it’s all free and easy – the AHA will ship right to you.
One of the most exciting parts of the campaign includes the launch of the AHA’s largest ever program to provide funding to local groups that want to take action.
“The AHA is providing local humanist groups across the country with resources to educate the public about the dangers of Project 2025, the actions needed to stop it, and the importance of participating in democracy by voting,” said AHA Senior Education Coordinator Emily Newman. “We’re running our largest-ever grant program to support chapters and affiliates as they throw Postcard Parties, host speaker and discussion events, advertise to increase awareness, and develop other creative actions.”
With support from the Secular Student Alliance (SSA), the AHA is hiring four Democracy Defense Fellows (DDFs) who will organize on their campus and in their communities to raise the awareness of the dangers of the tenets of Project 2025. DDFs will manage a grassroots campaign that both educates voters about the dangers of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and encourages people to register to vote and vote. They will be paid a competitive wage and supported by AHA staff.
“By empowering local youth into leadership roles, a new generation is supported and equipped to face the challenges created by Christian Nationalism and identify where and how it presents itself”, said Isabella Russian, Policy Manager at the AHA. “This is exactly the kind of opportunity young and passionate activists seek early in their advocacy experience, as they will have the support and guidance of the AHA every step of the way. We’re excited to work with these young leaders as they become trained to go forth and make a real difference.”
The American Humanist Association is committed to strengthening the secular nature of our government for all. Those who wish to support this effort can donate to the American Humanist Association here.
Tags: Project 2025Isabella Russian is the Policy Manager at the American Humanist Association.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
This past weekend, hundreds of humanists gathered online for the American Humanist Association’s 83rd Annual Conference, The Future is Humanist: Shaping Tomorrow Together.
Attendees joined exciting sessions on topics including Humanism and AI, Hidden Disabilities, Threats to Public Education, Re-Imagining Relationships, Reproductive Rights, Humanism and Science, Humanist Professionals, Secular Elected Officials, and Progressive Parenting. They also gathered in networking sessions and discussion boards to discuss these ideas further.
In addition, participants had the opportunity to meet the AHA’s new Executive Director, Fish Stark. Fish is an organizer, educator, social entrepreneur, and lifelong humanist who has spent his career turning big ideas into bold action in service of belonging, flourishing, and social justice for all people. In keeping with the conference theme, Fish presented his vibrant vision for the future of the AHA, with ample opportunities for the audience to ask questions and get to know him. He also introduced an vital new project to combat Project 2025, Democracy Not Theocracy, which you can read about elsewhere in this newsletter.
The AHA also presented awards to several deserving individuals. The Religious Freedom Award was given jointly to Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-2) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-8) for their work protecting separation of church and state, especially through their co-founding of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.
Karen Hao
Journalist Karen Hao accepted the Humanist Media Award for her work covering artificial intelligence. She was the first journalist to ever profile OpenAI and is now working on a book about the company and the AI industry to be published in 2025. She is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and leads The AI Spotlight Series, a program she designed to train journalists on covering AI. Previously, she was a foreign correspondent at The Wall Street Journal and a senior editor at MIT Technology Review. She has been a fellow with the Harvard Technology and Public Purpose Project, the MIT Knight Science Journalism Program, and the Pulitzer Center’s AI Accountability Network.
The Inquiry and Innovation Award was presented to Ted Chiang, renowned science fiction writer. His fiction has won four Hugo, four Nebula, and six Locus Awards, and has been reprinted in Best American Short Stories. His first collection, Stories of Your Life and Others, has been translated into twenty-one languages, and the title story was the basis for the Oscar-nominated film Arrival. His second collection Exhalation was chosen by The New York Timesas one of the 10 Best Books of 2019.
Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman was named the 2024 Humanist of the Year. Ms. Goodman is a broadcast journalist and serves as the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 1,400 public television and radio stations worldwide. The New York Times has written that Democracy Now!, “distinguishes itself by documenting social movements, struggles for justice and the effects of American foreign policy, along with the rest of the day’s developments.” Ms. Goodman has reported on violent conflicts around the world, on unrest here at home, and has been arrested covering protests at The White House and the Republican Convention. Her journalism has been recognized with a host of awards.
If you were able to attend our 83rd annual conference, we hope you enjoyed these thought-provoking discussions, were inspired by our impactful awardees, and found virtual community with fellow humanists around the world. Mark your calendars – the 84th annual conference will be held in person in Chicago on June 27th – 29th, 2025.
Tags: AHA Annual ConferenceNicole Carr is the Deputy Director of the American Humanist Association, Editor of the Humanist magazine, and Senior Editor of TheHumanist.com. Prior to joining the staff at the AHA, she worked in development and communications for arts and education non-profit organizations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE bids farewell to Lin Andrews. Joining NCSE in 2019 after teaching high school biology for 18 years, she expanded the breadth and depth of NCSE’s Supporting Teachers program.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked with NCSE’s Teacher Ambassadors to develop three misconception-based curricula on climate change, evolution, and the nature of science and with former Executive Director Ann Reid to develop a series of educational essays to help teachers understand the science of the pandemic throughout the crisis.
As program director, she worked extensively with the science teacher community, coordinating NCSE’s outreach efforts, representing NCSE at conferences, and contributing to journals such as The American Biology Teacher, District Administrator, and In the Trenches, the newsletter of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers.
Additionally, along with the NCSE Supporting Teachers team, Andrews developed and executed a two-year longitudinal study with over 30 curriculum field-test (CFT) teachers, looking at the supports and barriers teachers face when implementing NGSS storyline curricula. The results of that study were described in Research Issues in Contemporary Education.
In her final year at NCSE, Andrews oversaw the development of the new NCSE Story Shorts and Teacher Toolkit, which resulted from the knowledge gained during the CFT study. All of us at NCSE wish her the best in her new endeavors.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Bill 3142 — which would have codified the California Center for Climate Change at West Los Angeles College in the Los Angeles Community College District and establish the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education — was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 27, 2024.
In his veto message (PDF), Governor Newsom wrote, “Although establishing and operating the California Mobile Unit for Climate Education is a laudable goal, this bill could create significant Proposition 98 General Fund cost pressures that are not reflected in the state’s current fiscal plan. … For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.”
As passed, Assembly Bill 3142 would have amended the state’s education code to include a description of the center’s mission (“to promote climate change education at the California Community Colleges and establish opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and other learning opportunities”), activities, and responsibilities.
The bill would also have established the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education to aid the center in its provision of opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and the like. Originally a further $1.5 million would have been allocated for the purpose, but the bill was amended to make the allocation conditional on a separate approval by the legislature.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE’s annual report for 2023 is now available (PDF) on NCSE’s website. The report briefly describes the efforts of NCSE’s Supporting Teachers, Catalyzing Action, and Investigating Science Education programs through the year, lists a handful of reports in the media about NCSE’s activities and by NCSE’s staff, and includes a brief financial report — especially useful for those considering donating to NCSE!
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley.
NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley discussed NCSE and its work on the Science Book Club podcast (September 15, 2024). After describing her own background and the route that took her to helm NCSE, she explained NCSE’s main activities and the continuing need for them with regard to evolution, climate change, and the nature of science. Among NCSE’s current projects, she highlighted the My Coast teacher education program (the subject of a short video from NCSE). Among NCSE’s past triumphs, she emphasized the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the 20th anniversary of which is upcoming in 2025. Science Book Club selected NCSE as the beneficiary of its current fundraiser.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
Photo of Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan (right) during the Scopes Trial in 1925.
NCSE deputy director Glenn Branch reviewed Brenda Wineapple’s new book about the Scopes trial, Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial that Riveted a Nation, for The Humanist (September 4, 2024), following up on his recent review of Gregg Jarrett’s The Trial of the Century for Free Inquiry.
“Well-researched, well-paced, and well-written, there is a lot to like about Keeping the Faith,” Branch concluded his review. “[A]t a time when attacks on evolution education seem to be sadly resurgent, it is good to be presented with such a spirited chronicle of the fabulous monkey trial of a century ago.”
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
A lawsuit in Indiana alleging that the teaching of evolution in public schools is unconstitutional was dismissed by a U.S. District Court on August 30, 2024, reports WISHTV (August 30, 2024).
Jennifer and Jason Reinoehl, parents of five children who attended the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, a school district headquartered in Mishawaka, Indiana, and one of their children initially sued the district, the Indiana state board of education, and Katie Jenner, the Indiana Secretary of Education, in May 2023.
The plaintiffs contended that the district schools teach “the state-sponsored, atheistic, religious Theory of Evolution … under the guise that that it is ‘science,'” that what they regard as various components of evolutionary theory have been scientifically disproven, and that “the atheistic Theory of Evolution specially attacks the Judeo-Christian origin story.”
Accordingly, they sought a declaration that the teaching of evolution in Indiana’s public schools violates the federal and the Indiana constitutions, an injunction prohibiting the defendants from teaching evolution in the future and requiring them to remove all relevant instructional materials, and a monetary award of damages.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege an Establishment Clause violation because, in the words of McLean v. Arkansas (1982), “it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.”
Noting that the plaintiffs apparently sought to invoke a federal statute as a basis for their claim that teaching evolution violates the Indiana constitution, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs could amend the complaint and try again. But the court suggested that doing so would be “futile.”
The case is Reinoehl et al. v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation et al., No. 1:23-cv-00889-SEB-MG (2024 S.D. Ind.)
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE is seeking to hire a part-time development associate to manage ongoing membership efforts and oversee a new membership acquisition project. This is a part-time (24 hours/week) and fully remote position, beginning January 1, 2025; applications will be accepted until September 27, 2024. Further information about duties, qualifications, salary, and the application process is available from NCSE’s job page.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Bill 3051 — which would, if enacted, have allowed the state’s taxpayers donate funds to the K–12 Climate Change Education Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund while filing their state taxes — died in committee on August 31, 2024, when the legislature adjourned.
Donated funds would have been used to “award grants to school districts, county offices of education, resource conservation districts, district and county office of education partnerships with higher education institutions, and community-based nongovernmental organizations focused on environmental and climate change education.”
The bill was introduced by Al Muratsuchi (D-District 66) on February 16, 2024, and was amended twice thereafter; it was passed by the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee but then was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it received no vote.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Concurrent Resolution 162 died in the Senate Rules Committee when the California legislature adjourned on August 31, 2024. The resolution passed the Assembly on a 65-0 vote on May 9, 2024, as NCSE previously reported.
If adopted, the resolution would have established California Youth Action Climate Day, “to honor and support the efforts of young people in their pursuit of environmental sustainability, climate justice, and the preservation of biodiversity.”
The resolution notes that climate change “is a consequence of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels” and recognizes “the importance of educating and engaging young people in environmental stewardship and climate action.”
If adopted, the resolution would have encouraged institutions, including schools, and individuals to observe California Youth Climate Action Day every September 20 with appropriate activities, including activities that promote awareness of climate change.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch was featured in the Naperville Sun‘s story (August 23, 2024) on Illinois’s new climate change education law.
Signed into law on August 9, 2024, the new law requires “every public school shall provide instruction on climate change, which shall include, but not be limited to, identifying the environmental and ecological impacts of climate change on individuals and communities and evaluating solutions for addressing and mitigating the impact of climate change,” as NCSE previously reported.
The law also provides, “The State Board of Education shall, subject to appropriation, prepare and make available multi-disciplinary instructional resources and professional learning opportunities for educators that may be used to meet the requirements of this subsection.” In the original version of the bill, such instructional resources and learning opportunities were not contingent on further appropriations.
Branch put the law in national context, noting that although practically all states now include climate change in their state science standards, Illinois is now the third state, after Connecticut and California, to require climate change education as a matter of statute. Such laws are “really powerful symbolism,” he suggested. “It shows that the legislature has recognized that there’s a need for climate change education.”
He added, “I really hope the legislature follows up by making those appropriations … to make these resources and training opportunities available to their teachers.”
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
“The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia has launched an online tool for students and their parents to make reports on attempts by teachers to push religious ideology under the guise of science as the new school year begins,” reports WDTV (August 23, 2024).
The tool was prompted by the enactment of Senate Bill 280 on March 22, 2024. The new law provides that “[n]o public school board, school superintendent, or school principal may prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing or answering questions from students about scientific theories of how the universe and/or life came to exist.”
“It’s entirely unclear what exactly the final version of this bill seeks to permit, because it was already lawful for teachers to answer questions about scientific theories,” ACLU-WV Legal Director Aubrey Sparks told WDTV. But she expressed concern that misguided teachers might believe that it licenses teachers to present their religious views as science.
As originally introduced, Senate Bill 280 provided that “[t]eachers in public schools, including public charter schools, that include any one or more of grades kindergarten through 12, may teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist,” as NCSE previously reported.
Teaching “intelligent design” in the public schools was found to be unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. Although Senate Bill 280 was revised to remove any reference to “intelligent design,” the bill’s lead sponsor, Amy Grady (R-District 4), declared that it still would protect the teaching of “intelligent design,” according to West Virginia Watch (January 23, 2024).
“If a teacher is pushing religion in your classroom or your child’s classroom,” the tool explains, “we want to hear from you.” Sparks told WDTV that ACLU-WV will closely monitor the situation and that a member of the legal team will personally review every complaint received.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
“A state-developed reading curriculum for public elementary schools in Texas is infused with lessons that overwhelmingly emphasize the Bible over sacred texts of other religions and subtly portray Christian faith claims as true in ways that verge on proselytizing students,” according to the Texas Freedom Network (August 15, 2024) — and endorsement of the creation and flood stories of Genesis is involved.
Controversy surrounded the proposed curriculum as soon as it was released in May 2024, not long after the Texas Republican party adopted a platform that called on the legislature and the state board of education to require instruction on the Bible in the state’s public schools. The 74 (May 29, 2024) reported that conservative organizations, including the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Hillsdale College, were involved in the development of the curriculum.
Of particular concern was a kindergarten unit entitled “Exploring Art,” which devotes a lesson to the creation and flood stories from Genesis. Creation stories from the ancient Maya, Aztec, and Greek cultures are mentioned but not described in detail, while four pages, including artwork, are devoted to Genesis. Moreover, students are expected to answer questions about the details of the events recounted in Genesis.
The proposed curriculum was criticized as “designed to instill religion and promote Christianity and the Bible, in violation of the Constitution” by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (August 20, 2024). Americans United described “Exploring Art” in particular as the “most egregious example,” explaining, “this lesson is purely devotional and has no secular purpose — it is no different from a Sunday School lesson.”
Similarly, in a report (PDF) prepared for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, David R. Brockman, a religious studies scholar and Christian theologian, wrote, “It is difficult to avoid concluding that this … unit is being used as an excuse to smuggle in what is effectively Bible study,” and noted that “kindergarteners are likely to come away … believing that the biblical story is the creation account and that it alone is worth their attention” (emphasis in original).
According to the Texas Freedom Network, “The State Board of Education will hold a public hearing on the OER reading curriculum for Kindergarten through Grade 5 as well as other materials submitted for approval in September. The board is expected to take a final vote on approval in November.” Information on the board’s upcoming meetings and public testimony registration is available on the board’s website.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Bill 3142 — which would, if enacted, codify the California Center for Climate Change at West Los Angeles College in the Los Angeles Community College District and establish the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education — was passed by the Senate on a 36-0 vote on August 20, 2024, and now proceeds to the governor’s desk.
In 2022, Assembly Bill 1913 sought to establish the California Center for Climate Change with a $5 million appropriation, as NCSE previously reported. Although the bill died in committee, the center was nevertheless established in 2023, with the aid of a $5 million allocation in the 2022 state budget and a further $1.3 million of federal funding.
Like Assembly Bill 1913, Assembly Bill 3142 would amend the state’s education code to include a description of the center’s mission (“to promote climate change education at the California Community Colleges and establish opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and other learning opportunities”), activities, and responsibilities.
The bill would also establish the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education to aid the center in its provision of opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and the like. Originally a further $1.5 million would have been allocated for the purpose, but the bill was amended to make the allocation conditional on a separate approval by the legislature.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
House Bill 4895, Illinois’s first climate change education bill to pass the legislature, was signed into law by Governor J. B. Pritzker on August 9, 2024.
As passed, the bill provides that, “Beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, every public school shall provide instruction on climate change, which shall include, but not be limited to, identifying the environmental and ecological impacts of climate change on individuals and communities and evaluating solutions for addressing and mitigating the impact of climate change and shall be in alignment with State learning standards, as appropriate. The State Board of Education shall, subject to appropriation, prepare and make available multi-disciplinary instructional resources and professional learning opportunities for educators that may be used to meet the requirements of this subsection.”
The provisions of the bill as passed are substantially less ambitious than the bill as introduced. As introduced, the bill would have required every public high school in Illinois to “include in its curriculum a unit of instruction addressing climate change in either a required science class or a required social studies class.” It would also have required instruction on climate change to be included in all high school courses in science, agriculture, social science, and relevant career and technical education courses. The state superintendent of education would have been charged with preparing appropriate instructional materials and professional development training for educators.
Before the bill was signed, Northern Public Radio (July 12, 2024) interviewed Grace Brady, a recent high school graduate from Naperville, Illinois, who “created and helped write” the bill. “I felt unsatisfied with the amount of education on climate change,” Brady explained. In researching possible remedies, she added, “I found that most people want climate change education, most students do. And I found that it was important that climate change education is integrated in different courses.” Pursuing the project required “quite a bit of persistence, being flexible, and working with the different stakeholders.” She advised her fellow students concerned about climate change education to “stay persistent, stay curious, ask questions, and just keep going on whatever you’re passionate about.”
Two other climate change education bills, Senate Bill 3644 and House Bill 4319, died in committee when the legislature adjourned.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch discussed the ongoing challenges for climate change education in a ten-minute video posted on the YouTube channel The Wonderful Truth (August 13, 2024). Beginning by describing the recent censorship of climate change in Florida’s science textbooks, Branch pivoted to discuss “Climate change education in U.S. middle schools: Changes over five pivotal years,” a recent publication from NCSE’s Investigating Science Education program that documented promising improvements in middle school climate education. “It is certainly encouraging that when pollsters ask people whether they support schools teaching about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming, about three in four of them say that they strongly or somewhat support it,” Branch concluded. “That’s true even in Florida.”
Safa Ahmed: Yes, sure. What this new survey reveals is that 80% of Indian American Muslims are reporting experiences of discrimination and exclusion, particularly by a political version of another religion, Hinduism, in the form of Hindu nationalism, often from their American peers.
For some background on where the idea for this survey came from, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) has existed for around 20 years. It was founded in 2002, right after Modi became the prime minister of Gujarat, a state in Northern India. In 2002, he was the chief minister of that state. Under his watch, and as reported by the BBC, many people claim, with his explicit permission, a pogrom was carried out against Indian Muslims.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1: Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Evangelos Katsioulis, Jason Betts, Marco Ripà, Paul Cooijmans, Rick Rosner; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2: Claus Volko, Deb Stone, Erik Haereid, Hasan Zuberi, Ivan Ivec, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Monika Orski, and Rick Rosner.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 3: Andreas Gunnarsson, Anja Jaenicke, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Florian Schröder, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Graham Powell, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Krystal Volney, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Owen Cosby, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Sandra Schlick, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Thomas Wolf, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4: Björn Liljeqvist, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, DSandra Schlick, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Justin Duplantis, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick G. Rosner, Thomas Wolf, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Arne Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 5: Anthony Sepulveda, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, Heinrich Siemens, Hindemburg Melão Jr., Jason Robert, Julien Garrett Arpin, Justin Duplantis, Marios Sophia Prodromou, Matthew Scillitani, Mhedi Banafshei, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, Tor Arne Jørgensen, and Veronica Palladino.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6: Anas El-Husseini, Andrew Watters, Anthony Sepulveda, Arturo Escorza Pedraza, Beatrice Rescazzi, Bob Williams, Byunghyun Ban (반병현), Casper Tvede Busk, Charles Peden, Craig Shelton, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Erik Haereid, Gareth Rees, Giuseppe Corrente, Justin Duplantis, Krystal Volney, Mhedi Banafshei, Paul Cooijmans, Richard May (“May-Tzu”/”MayTzu”/”Mayzi”), Richard Sheen, Shalom Dickson, Thor Fabian Pettersen, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tor Arne Jørgensen, and Anonymous Canadian High-IQ Community Member.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Retired Nuclear Physicist Bob Williams
With numerous large volumes of interviews, conducted by Scott Jacobsen, now available, we have a valuable resource for the study of the lives and pursuits of very bright people. Despite the large impact of people from this group, intelligence research has been overwhelmingly directed towards the middle 98%, thereby leaving out the most important 1%. There have been only two important longitudinal studies of very bright people. The first was Terman’s study that showed the high level of productivity and life satisfaction among the cohorts who were known as “Termites.” This study was criticized for its selection process (heavily verbal weighted) and the involvement of Terman in the lives of some of the group. The second study was the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, started by Julian Stanley and presently maintained by Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski. The longitudinal study shifted from the SAT-M to the SAT math and verbal. Curiously, the cohorts in those studies give the impression of following different paths than a large number of the interviewed group. The important thing is that these interviews add to a sparse part of the spectrum of what is known about very bright people.
Detterman, D.K., 2016. Was Intelligence necessary?. Intelligence, 55, pp.v-viii.
From very early, I was convinced that intelligence was the most important thing of all to understand, more important than the origin of the universe, more important than climate change, more important than curing cancer, more important than anything else. That is because human intelligence is our major adaptive function and only by optimizing it will we be able to save ourselves and other living things from ultimate destruction. It is as simple as that.
[Douglas Detterman is the founder of the International Society for Intelligence Research and its journal, Intelligence.]
The volumes of interviews on In-Sight, while not research studies, give us multiple snapshots of very bright people, their beliefs, their experiences, and their life directions. These are things that are missed by Terman and Stanley.
I was surprised and pleased to see that some of the interviews in this volume are of people I have known — through the marvel of cyberspace — for a long time. If you are daunted by the number of interviews here and plan to read only a few samples, please take time to read the typically entertaining and thought provoking interview with Richard May, who continues to argue that he does not exist! Richard has the ability to be entertaining, abstract, and stimulating without being pedant.
One of the many insights we have from Charles Spearman is known as Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns. It tells us that the general factor (g, Spearman’s g, psychometric g) accounts for less and less of the differences seen in intelligence among increasingly bright people, shifting high level ability towards non-g factors and causing increased diversity of thought and interests. Although there are some mixed results in confirming SLODR, it is generally accepted by researchers as valid. In reading through this collection of interviews, the reality of this observation can be seen, as evidenced by the different interests and ways of thinking among this bright group.
Foreword by Gareth Rees
I’d like to take a moment to reflect on and appreciate the events that led to the compilation of these interviews. I extend my gratitude to all past and present test designers and candidates, regardless of the latent variables being measured. These individuals have played a key role in fostering communities that may endure for generations to come.
Intelligence is one of the most important traits. Through the contributions of the participants in this issue of Some Smart People, we catch a glimpse of its many facets.
In the distant future, we will eventually achieve superintelligence — a system where input from all intelligent beings is selected, processed, and integrated. Opposing views will create pathways for new insights when combined, and bias will be discarded in the pursuit of higher knowledge. While the world isn’t ready yet, when greater awareness emerges, we will have the opportunity to experience the true magic and harmony of elevated existence.
On a final note, we owe a huge thanks to Scott Douglas Jacobsen for his years of thoughtful dedication and persistence. So, THANK YOU, Scott!
Foreword by Author and Poet Krystal Volney
To introduce myself, my name is Krystal Volney and I’m a Sociologist, Computing and Public Relations graduate who has been the Co-Editor of the Phenomenon Magazine of the World Intelligence Network since 2019. The Author of Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6 Scott Douglas Jacobsen, is a brilliant writer and Interviewer who is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing. In this splendidly put together book, readers can view conversations between him and thirty-two High-IQ geniuses from interviews he conducted. The significance of the discussions is to demonstrate the opinions of those people on various matters in life in the fields of Philosophy, High-IQ societies & Intelligence Testing and I believe that this is a magnificent book to read.
To begin, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Philosophy is defined as ‘the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality, esp. of the causes and nature of things and of the principles governing existence, the material universe, perception of physical phenomena, and human behavior’. Metaphysics (a branch of Philosophy to be more exact) is an interesting topic that is discussed with the Philosopher Christian Sorensen and Scott Douglas Jacobsen in this book. The interview underlined his views on what is ‘Real’, different types of Philosophy and various belief systems. Another interview where this is discussed is with Arturo Escorza Pedraza who is a member of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. The interviewee Charles Peden stated his views on ethical philosophy, theology and religion when asked. In the conversation between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dr. Giuseppe Corrente, life philosophy such as in the political and social realms was examined. Glia Society member Anas El-Husseini gave his views on ethical philosophy when asked by the Interviewer. Shalom Dickson, a member of the Glia Society as well, stated his beliefs in Kantian ethics when ethical philosophy was inquired. A member of the World Genius Directory, Casper Tvede Busk dictated his viewpoints in ethical philosophy, theology and religion in an interview with Scott. Thor Fabian Pettersen, another interviewee, gives the readers a profound understanding of his philosophical values. In the next two interviews with an anonymous Canadian High-IQ Community member and Richard May, philosophical interpretations were underscored. Therefore, it is valid to declare that in Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6, that Philosophy is importantly discussed between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and those selected geniuses, making it a spectacular book to read.
Additionally, High-IQ societies are groups for people that share top IQ scores to meet, socialize and share their interests. By way of example, Mensa International, the Mega Society, the Prometheus Society, the Giga Society and the World Intelligence Network (that has many High-IQ clubs for child prodigies, students, college graduates and the Elderly). In Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s book Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6, he conducted interviews with those in the Intelligence Quotient community about their High-IQ memberships such as Christian Sorensen, Arturo Escorza Pedraza, Justin Duplantis, Tor Arne Jørgensen, Mhedi Banafshei, Claus Volko and Beatrice Rescazzi. Consequently, this makes the book by Scott a great choice for any reader interested in or a member of the High-IQ societies.
Furthermore, Cambridge Dictionary defines an ‘Intelligence Test as a test that measures the ability of a person to understand and learn by comparing it with the ability of other people’. These tests begin when pupils are at kindergarten and continue all throughout life for most humans who value being educated in the schooling systems. There are those who choose to take IQ-tests to measure their intelligence by qualifying and becoming members of High-IQ clubs or pursuing undergraduate and/or graduate degrees or doing both IQ testing as well as testing in schools or homeschooling. In Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6 Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s interviews demonstrate the opinions of the geniuses Byunghyun Ban, Christian Sorensen, Justin Duplantis and an Anonymous Canadian High-IQ member with regards to Intelligence Testing, that proves that his book is something all in the High-IQ community would enjoy. As a result, it is valid to announce that this is magnificent work to read.
To conclude, the book Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6 authored by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is great for leisure reading for bibliophiles and those in the High-IQ clubs. It truly demonstrates the genius of ‘some intelligent people’ literally who are qualified through Intelligence Testing via I.Q. tests as well as constant learners with educational attainments. Great Job Scott!
Krystal Volney
(Poet and Author)
Foreword by TNS Former Editor Justin Duplantis
It is both an honor and a pleasure to introduce this insightful work by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, a distinguished author renowned for his explorations into the realms of intelligence and the human mind. Drawing upon expertise and a wealth of personal experiences, Jacobsen paints a comprehensive and vivid picture of what it means to belong to one of the most intellectually gifted segments of society, through his in-depth interviews.
As someone who has served as the Editor for the Triple Nine Society, an international High IQ society that prides itself on community, shared knowledge, and mutual support, I am deeply familiar with the unique challenges and incredible potential that high IQ individuals embody. My personal interviews with Jacobsen provided a platform to discuss these themes in detail, bringing light to the often underrepresented narratives of exceptionally bright children and their navigation through life.
In our conversations, we delved into topics ranging from educational strategies tailored to high IQ children, the importance of emotional intelligence alongside cognitive prowess, and the societal perceptions that often overshadow these young minds’ capabilities. The high IQ community at large, including organizations like the Triple Nine Society, plays a crucial role in fostering environments where brilliance is not only recognized but also nurtured — a core theme that this book captures so eloquently.
Jacobsen’s writing is accessible yet profound, offering both scholarly depth and practical insights for individuals, parents, educators, and anyone interested in the psychology of intelligence. His dedication to understanding and communicating the intricacies of high IQ individuals is evident on every page, making this book a valuable resource for those within and outside the high IQ community. It is my hope that readers will gain not only knowledge but also a greater appreciation for the extraordinary capabilities and needs of high IQ children and adults. May this book serve as a beacon of understanding and a call to action for a more inclusive and supportive society.
Sincerely, Justin Duplantis
Former Editor and Executive Committee Member, Triple Nine Society
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Paul Cooijmans founded GliaWebNews, Order of Thoth, Giga Society, Order of Imhotep, The Glia Society, and The Grail Society. His main high-IQ societies remain Giga Society and The Glia Society. Both devoted to the high-IQ world. Giga Society, founded 1996, remains among the world’s most exclusive high-IQ society with a theoretical cutoff of one in a billion individuals. The Glia Society, founded in 1997, is a “forum for the intelligent” to “encourage and facilitate research related to high mental ability.” Cooijmans earned credentials, two bachelor degrees, in composition and in guitar from Brabants Conservatorium. His interests lie in human “evolution, eugenics, exact sciences (theoretical physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence).” He continues administration of numerous societies, such as the aforementioned, to compose musical works for online consumption, to publish intelligence tests and associated statistics, and to write and publish on topics of interest to him. He can be contacted here. Cooijmans discusses: 1994; the realizations about the tests; g; common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust; the counterintuitive findings in the study of the high-range; the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence; skills and considerations; proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests; remove or minimize test constructor bias; listed norms; the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test; the structure of the data in high-range test results; homogeneous and heterogeneous tests; “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests; English-based bias; questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability; roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments; the intended age-range for high-range tests; sex differences; frauds and cheaters; identity verification; the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker; ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test; precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test; appropriate places for people to start; test constructors have you considered good; learned from making these tests and their variants; Mahir Wu; test item answers with ambiguity; sufficient clues for discovery and solution; a mere guessing logic; a test’s quality; the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors; issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another; scale and norm; Matthew Scillitani; a stigma around high-range tests; test construction and norming processes; the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test; tests–51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special; articles in Netherlandic on test design; some submitted questions anonymously; geniuses; yourself as a genius; others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence; most common mistake people make when submitting feedback; aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing; Marathon Test Numeric Section; creating high-range questions; books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics.
Keywords: Cooijmans intelligence tests development, counterintuitive findings in IQ testing, difficult intelligence tests creation, high-range intelligence measurement, early IQ test construction insights, intelligence scale development, guitarist talent assessment, high-range IQ test insights, IQ testing beyond mainstream limits, high-range IQ testing, IQ tests for Giga Society.
On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics
Paul Cooijmans: I have examined the sheets of paper on which I created the first test, as well as my agendas from that period, and it appears the interest started in the spring of 1994, like April or May.
Jacobsen: At the time, what were the realizations about the tests and the need to develop yours?
Cooijmans: The first test was meant to assess the progress of guitarists, and I had many guitar students then, even over a hundred, including those of jobs as a replacement teacher. I was astounded how well a guitarist’s level could be graded on this scale, and also noted that guitarists were not necessarily advancing, and that beginners were sometimes way ahead of some long-term students, which made me realize there was something like talent, and that only limited progress within one’s range of talent was possible. And I observed that the level of a guitarist on this scale seemed to reflect a more general property than just musicality or guitar-technical ability, which is why I called this instrument “Graduator for human and guitarist”. Later I realized that this general property was mostly intelligence, and that when you measure specific skills or abilities, you also catch in general intelligence, often even primarily so.
In this period (1990s) I was taking some mainstream intelligence tests myself. I tended to get the maximum scores they could (or would) report on tests like Cattell Culture Fair, the Netherlandic WAIS, and the entire Drenth test series (the last were the hardest and highest-level tests available in the Netherlands) and when I asked what my real level was and how far I was above the reported maximum, I was told it was not possible to measure intelligence beyond about the 99th centile and that they had no tests that gave meaningful scores in that range. I also asked a few giftedness researchers about this, with the same answer. This, and the success of the Graduator, gave me the idea to create difficult intelligence tests to find out whether it was possible after all to measure intelligence at those higher levels.
Cooijmans: For a large number of my tests, I computed the estimated “g” loadings separately for the bottom half and the upper half of scores, the separation point being the median of scores. The upper half loadings were not generally much lower than the bottom half ones, although they were somewhat lower. This is reported in more detail at https://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/differentiation_hypothesis.html
If the question is for the real reason behind this, I suppose it is so that when a test contains sufficiently difficult problems and is not purposely neutered to hide differences between people, it will not lose “g” loading in the high range as much as mainstream psychological I.Q. tests do.And, the limited amount of loading it does lose may be due to the statistical phenomenon of attenuation by restriction of range, in other words may be an artefact and not a real loss.
I should explain that “g” loading is computed from correlations, and that correlations rely on variance. If you consider a restricted range (like the high range, or even the upper half of it as meant above) you are obviously restricting the variance compared to the full range, and therefore you are restricting the possible correlations you may find, and thus also restricting the possible “g” loading. This is a statistical artefact, not a real decrease of “g”. There may be a real decrease going on as well, of course.
Cooijmans: I am not so certain if many other test creators are even trying to make their tests valid, reliable, and robust, but if so, mistakes are the following:
(1) Making the test too short. This is bad for reliability, which increases with test length, and therefore also bad for validity, because reliability (correlation of a test with itself) is the upper limit of a test’s validity (correlation of a test with what it was intended to measure, or with anything else outside the test). Something can not correlate higher with something else than it correlates with itself.
(2) Making a test one-sided, homogeneous, only containing one item type. This reduces validity with regard to general intelligence, and makes the test more vulnerable to fraud and to score inflation through increasing familiarity with the item type, so less robust.
(3) Making it likely that test answers will leak out in ways as follows: Publishing the test itself online, revealing answers to candidates after test-taking, publishing item analysis so that everyone can see how difficult each item is, allowing retests (which allows people to figure out what the intended answers to some problems are), giving feedback as to which problems a candidate had wrong, answering questions about the test to candidates who are taking the test, and possibly more.
(4) Subjective scoring of problems that do not have a single correct answer. This reduces the reliability and validity of the test; scores are not comparable between candidates.
(5) Relying on face validity regarding what a problem measures or how hard it is. This tends to be far off.
(6) Omitting verbal problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. This greatly limits a test’s validity with regard to general intelligence. Verbal problems span by far the widest range of abilities and hardness, and one should not throw that away. Of course it should never be about idioms or pronunciation, as those are localized and transient. Verbal problems should transcend language barriers and fashions or trends.
(7) Omitting knowledge-requiring problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. It is only trivial, transient knowledge that one should avoid. Fundamental, general knowledge that transcends barriers greatly adds to a test’s validity.
(8) Finally I have to include a mistake that I made myself on several occasions: helping or cooperating with the wrong persons, who later proved unreliable, deceitful, or otherwise misbehaving. Promoting tests by someone who later turned against me or denied my role, co-authoring a test with someone who then leaked out the answers, things like that. So, not being selective enough when deciding whether to cooperate with someone.
Cooijmans: The first counterintuive finding is that test problems are much harder for the candidate than for the test creator, and that a fair number of (in the eyes of the latter) ridiculously easy problems need to be included to obtain a score distribution with a discernible left tail. Going by one’s intuitive notion of item hardness, one gets a distribution with a mode at zero right or so, and a steeply tapering right tail from there.
The second counterintuitive finding is the huge sex difference in participation. I would never have guessed there would be 4.5 times more males as females taking high-range tests, and on the level of test submissions the ratio is even 10.5 because males take more tests per person. Because of this sex difference, I have recently started reporting the “proportion of high-range candidates outscored” within-sex.After all, sports like boxing have separate competitions per sex too, have they not?And nearer by, even mental sports like chess have women’s competitions, although the naive observer will have difficulty understanding the necessity for that.The sex difference in participation should be seen in the light of the general phenomenon that, on almost all types of psychological tests, the highest and lowest scores tend to come from males. This greater male spread may explain why a test focused on the high range receives more male participation.
The third counterintuitive finding concerns a small but significant negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with various indicators of psychiatric disorders and deviance, such as actual reported disorders, disorders in relatives, and personality test scores. I had not expected this, based on the popular notion of “giftedness” as a problem that requires “help”, and based on remarks of highly intelligent people who told me things like, “I am certain that those of very high intelligence are more inclined to depression”. I do not know why this correlation is negative; maybe a high I.Q. suppresses the expression of a disorder, or maybe the disorder depresses one’s I.Q.? My observation in communication with people of known I.Q. test scores over many years is consistent with the negative correlation: the higher the I.Q. of people, the more normal they behave in the psychosocial sense (even the ones who believe that their high I.Q. makes them more inclined to depression).
Cooijmans: Since high-range tests are typically unsupervised and untimed, certain types of tasks can not be included: working memory, concentration, working under time pressure, dexterity, motor coordination, clerical accuracy and such all require supervision. To our good fortune, most of those abilities are known to have relatively low “g” loadings compared to what can be included in unsupervised untimed tests: verbal, numerical, and spatial or visual-spatial problems. So a good indication of “g” is still possible via unsupervised testing.The factors known to have the highest “g” loadings are present.
The absence of tasks as meant in the first sentence of the previous paragraph might lead one to think that high-range tests have some bias in favour of theoretical, abstract-logical, clumsy, wooden bookworm types, but this should not be taken for granted, and is perhaps even contradicted by the negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with indicators of psychiatric disorders. Also, spatial and visual-spatial tasks, which are present, are known to correlate positively with practical, performance, hands-on tasks involving motor coordination and dexterity, so that part of the missing task types are more or less covered still. And visual reasoning or visual-spatial problems have no bias against persons of low verbal ability.
On a more general level, high-range tests can be said to demand strict reasoning, as well as the ability to recognize pattern of any kind. Pattern recognition may be related to what I have called “associative horizon”, and may include what others call “thinking outside the box” or “stepping out of the system”. The higher levels of pattern recognition, I think, require awareness, and that would imply that scores above a certain level be only possible for aware entities. Seeing the rise of artificial intelligence, this may become important. As long as artificial intelligence is not aware, constructors of high-range tests will need to try to limit new tests to types of problems that can not yet be solved by artificial intelligence, to avoid fraud by people consulting artificial intelligence for problem-solving. Once artificial intelligence acquires self-awareness, it should be able to solve any test problems that humans can solve.
Jacobsen: In an overview, what skills and considerations seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Cooijmans: I would say that if one is highly intelligent with a reasonably balanced profile as well as conscientious, almost any skill can be learnt. The primary skill is being an autodidact. I know some have a disdain for autodidacts and consider them crackpots. But if you are doing something original, anything that has not been done before, you had better be an autodidact because no one can tell you how to do it. There exists no path to where no one has gone before.A further handicap of autodidact originality is that often you can not refer to “sources” as is customary in mainstream science. If you are the first to think of something, you are yourself the source and there is nothing already extant to refer to.
Skills that may need to be learnt for constructing test items include expressing oneself properly through language so as to truly communicate, making positive use of comments from others, drawing, image editing, statistics, programming, organizing one’s time (days, weeks, months) in a disciplined way, getting out of bed daily, and more such obvious things.
Examples of habits to be urgently unlearnt are the use of idiomatic expressions and abbreviations, anonymity and pseudonymity, inappropriate communication while under the influence of substance abuse, and not responding punctually to bona fide work-related communication (as in regularly letting people wait for months). This paragraph may yield some angry “Do you mean me?” responses, but it has to be said.
There are also requirements that, unfortunately, can not be learnt, such as sincerity and sense of righteousness.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests rather than–let’s call them–“static” tests consisting of a single item or set of items presented as a whole test, unchanging, instead of a collection of algorithmically variant or shifting items adapting to prior testee answers in a computer interface?
Cooijmans: Firstly it occurs to me that if one is going to use a computer interface and software to assess an individual’s intelligence, analysis of observed behaviour (including communication) and of the candidate’s responses to a computer-conducted interview should already provide a quite accurate estimation. Observation and interview are the primary means of gathering information in psychology. The interview could be made adaptive, with subsequent questions depending on prior answers, but a standard interview might work just as well. In the age of artificial intelligence, this is the way to go first.
Secondly, if one is going to use a computer interface and software anyway, the testing of elementary cognitive tasks like reaction time, decision time, perceptual threshold, and working memory capacity should probably be the next thing to do. After observation and interview, testing is the third method of collecting information. A practical problem is that one may need to use the same quality of hardware to get reliable results. When letting people use their own computer, the results may be affected by the quality and speed of one’s graphical processing unit, and whether or not one has a dedicated one, for instance.
Finally, adaptive psychometric testing might be tried. But there are problems; it is not for nothing that static psychometric tests are so much more common in practice. Adaptive testing relies on item-response theory, wherein statistical properties like difficulty and discrimination are first determined for each item by letting a group of people try to solve it. These values are later used to compute the score of the candidate being tested adaptively, the set of items used being different for different candidates.
One problem is that statistical properties of single items are not constant in my experience, but change depending on the context in which the item is presented, and depending on the group of people attempting the item. For instance, if an item is presented among other items that are somewhat similar to it, it will likely behave as an easier item than when it is presented among items that are more different from it. And if an item is attempted by a group of conscientious people, it will have higher discriminating power than when it is attempted by unconscientious people. So the values of these item properties used in adaptive testing may be off, or as already said, single items do not have constant statistical properties, and that undermines the idea of adaptive psychometric testing.
Also, adaptive psychometric testing as it is normally thought of requires timing and supervision in my opinion. But the worldwide high-range testing population is used to unsupervised untimed tests, and only a tiny fraction of them may be willing to travel to the hypothetical location where one has set up one’s million-euro adaptive testing system.
Jacobsen: How do you remove or minimize test constructor bias from tests?
Cooijmans: It is best to prevent such bias by creating a wide variety of item types and subject matter, and by trying to think of new such types and matter with every new test. Studying comments from candidates may also help to avoid item types and subject matter that have become familiar among test-takers and that they appear to expect from you. Statistical item analysis may also indicate that there are problems with particular items, and by looking into that one may in some cases discover that the problem lies in the item’s being too similar to other items one used before.
A few concrete methods to avoid bias are as follows: When creating knowledge-dependent items, consult a high-level thematic index of all the branches of human knowledge. One may find such in the Propaedia of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or in old-school web directories from before search engines dominated web search. Strive to make each knowledge-dependent item come from a different branch of knowledge. This prevents the inclusion of only fields of knowledge that the test creator happens to be acquainted with.
Vocabulary-dependent items may be constructed with the aid of dictionaries and use of a random element when choosing words to include.
One may look over one’s earlier tests when creating a new one to avoid repeating item types or patterns that were used before. Not that such repetition must be avoided totally, but it should remain limited, and a significant part of the new test should be novel.
Finally, to provide oneself with a broad pool of inspiration for possible test problems, one should expose oneself to a grand diversity of subject matter in the form of books and documentaries. This should also include materials that provide a basic understanding of fundamental sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and so on. One should aim to understand nature, reality, the universe, and awareness at the deepest level. The desire to understand existence is behind all great works of art and science.
Jacobsen: How do we know with confidence listed norms are, in fact, reasonably accurate on many of these tests? What is the range of sample sizes on the tests, even approximately, now? Practically speaking, for good statistics, what is your ideal number of test-takers? You can’t say, “8,128,000,000.”
Cooijmans: For the norms that I have made, the norming method is explained in the statistical report of the test in question, and some further explanation is referred to from the report. The reports contain about all the statistics that can be revealed without violating candidates’ privacy and without damaging the security of the test. So if one understands the report, one knows how much confidence to have in the norms. In fact I have devised a measure of quality of norms, based on the number of score pairs used and on their correlation with the object test.
Since the norms are anchored to other tests and not based directly on the general population (as opposed to the high-range population, for which I do have direct norms) it remains a question how close the high-range norms would be to the general population norms in that range, if tests existed that were normed directly on the general population and extended into the high range. The best indication thereto that I know of is the Mega Test by Ronald K. Hoeflin, which was normed mainly on the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination, which did seem to give meaningful scores into the high range, and thus form an anchor point between the general United States population and the high-range population, albeit that the G.R.E. was administered to a clearly above-average sample of the population so that the S.A.T. is ultimately the true anchor point.
Hoeflin’s Titan and Ultra Tests were normed to be consistent with the Mega Test norms, I think. The same goes for my early tests, and over the years I have tried to keep the norms in accordance with that anchor point over many generations of norms. To facilitate this, I have invented protonorms, which form an extra layer between raw scores and I.Q.’s, so that adjustments can be made in the relation of protonorms to I.Q. without having to change the norms of every single test. So, the question as to how we know that the norms are reasonably accurate, in one sense, goes back to Hoeflin’s interpretation of reported Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination scores, and scores on possible other tests used in norming the Mega Test, such as Cattell Verbal (also called Cattell B).Someone once sent me the data from the “Omni sample” of Mega Test scores, with known scores on other tests and correlations, which is how I know that the two mentioned educational tests provided the bulk of the norming data. I assume that Hoeflin had the population percentiles of the S.A.T. scores and used those as the main source of the Mega Test norms.
But there is more. Over time I have come to understand that the high-range score distribution itself contains information that is likely of an absolute nature and may help to anchor the norms or keep them consistent over time: The mode or modal range of high-range scores (when many scores are aggregated, for instance by combining the scores from many tests) occurs in the I.Q. 130s by current norms; below it, scores taper off steeply, above it, shallowly. This mode seems to be the point below which people feel less or not attracted to take high-range tests, and as such it should represent an absolute intelligence level; the level from where people are interested in intellectual endeavours, one might say.
Also, the level reached by the very highest scorers seems about constant over time, and falls between I.Q. 180 and 195 with the current norms. I am even carefully evolving to the viewpoint that this may be the highest intelligence level possible for any brain. So one could say that the norms in the high range are also defined by these two absolute (though coarse-grained) indicators (mode and maximum), not just by equation to scores from other tests. And, the number of scores that occur at these respective ranges are such that the current norms appear to be correct, that is, roughly in accordance with what one would expect given the predicted rarity in the general population of those I.Q. levels in a normal distribution.In fact one could theoretically norm the high range using these two indicators as anchor points, not needing scores from mainstream tests at all. And one could extend those norms linearly downward to include the normal range of intelligence, and the resulting scale might be better than that of actual mainstream tests normed directly on the general population. This is so because the general population and its average intelligence are changing, and therefore the norms of mainstream tests adapt to this change and are merely relative to the current population, not absolute. The high-range norms are the real, absolute indicator of intelligence.
The sample sizes of high-range tests vary from 0 to about 400, but for those with good norms mostly from 36 to 225 or so. The ideal number of test-takers to norm a test is about 64. More is not necessarily better, because as the submissions keep coming in and go into the triple-digit range, the later scores may not be fully comparable to the earlier scores any more due to things like answer leakage and increased familiarity with item types, and the norms may be affected by that and become unfair to the earlier test-takers. This can be countered by replacing problems that have become too easy (have leaked answers) but that changes the test, which also makes later scores less comparable to earlier ones, and if you change more than a little bit, you have to call it a revision and start over at zero collecting statistics for that new version.
High-range tests that appear to have very large samples, like around 300 or more, have generally achieved this through undesirable manipulations like retesting under false names, or combining retests with first attempts in the same sample, and so on.
Jacobsen: What arethe most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and, potentially, a tendency in a restricted set of personality types? Dr. Ronald Hoeflin was claimed to have the largest sample size of the high-range test constructors. Do you have the largest legitimate sample size of any high-range test constructor at this time, now, based on over a quarter century conscientiously gathering data? You were the most recommended person to interview for this series.
Cooijmans: In my experience, the best way to norm a high-range test is to rank-equate its raw scores to normed scores of the candidates on other tests. The other tests to be used should be selected based on their correlations with the object test; one sets the correlation threshold such that one obtains enough pairs. I have recently begun to set the threshold so that it maximizes the quality of norms, as given by a mathematical expression that uses the number of pairs and the weighted mean correlation. Thus it is objective, avoiding human decision.The expression that represents quality of norms is operational and may be improved as insights advance; I mention this because I know some are inclined to take these statistics as final and absolute, but they are parameters or controls that one sets to tune the system.
I deny that high-range sample sizes are low. They are in the dozens to hundreds as I said above, and that is well into the range of mainstream test samples and more than enough for good statistics. Considering that the high range consists of only a fraction of the population, it is to be expected that the samples are smaller, and in fact they are not much smaller at all. The notion that mainstream I.Q. tests have enormous samples is mistaken. Typically they have several hundred per norm group. Norm groups exist for age ranges, but sometimes also for educational levels. In the Netherlands there are different levels of secondary schools, and mainstream I.Q. tests may have separate norms per level, sometimes even based on only a few dozen per level (like in a Netherlandic version of the WAIS some years ago). A test often used by Mensa was normed on 3000, but divided over five age groups from 13 to 16 years, so the actual norms were based on 600 per age group. In other words they used high school students. And such norms have often been used for decades, ignoring the inflation of scores called “Flynn effect”. But in the minds of some people, the illusion is persistent that these “standard tests” are normed on hundreds of thousands or even millions, and form a kind of gold standard of I.Q. testing.
The largest samples are found in educational tests, but not as large as some think. In the Netherlands, a test called Cito-toets has long been used in the last year of primary school, yearly taken by about 100 000 children. But not normed on that number! The norms were established by administering an anchor test to a sample of about 4500 shortly before the actual test, and then equating the anchor test scores to the actual test scores. This helped to keep the standard scores stable throughout the years (the contents of the anchor test would remain the same for a number of years, while that of the actual test changed per year).
My own Cito report from 1977 shows a percentile of 100, which is uncommon but probably means the actual value was above 99.95, as a later statistical report by Cito I got to study contained a table where percentiles were rounded to 100 if the actual value was above 99.95. I have asked Cito in the mid-1990s what the precise value was, but they could not tell me, they only had kept percentiles as whole numbers. Similarly, I inquired about my scores on a comprehensive test given to us in secondary school around 1980, something like the Differential Aptitude Test, but was told those scores had not been saved. We never got a score report for that test at the time, but I understood from teachers I had done extremely well, and on a parent’s evening (which my parents never attended) a teacher told the public that I was a one-off (“unicum” was the Netherlandic word used). This teacher died in 2013, incidentally.
On the whole, I believe that high-range psychometrics is much more careful than mainstream psychometrics when it comes to the quality of norms and handling of score inflation by causes like answer leakage or people becoming more familiar with particular item types.
I might have the largest sample size of current high-range test constructors. It includes over 3000 individuals, over 6500 scores on I.Q. tests scored by me, over 2900 reported scores on other tests, and over 22000 data points on personal details, including personality tests. But more importantly, I have organized that data in an accessible way and automated the processing of it. I did all the programming myself, including the statistical functions.
Regarding a potentially restricted set of personality types and self-selection, it is inevitable that persons in the high range of intelligence differ in personality from those in the normal range and from those in the low range. This does not invalidate the norms in the high range. In fact, intelligence itself is a major aspect of personality. Self-selection is less of a problem than it seems because in general, people like doing what they are good at, so those attracted to taking high-range tests will mostly be intelligent. This is also illustrated by the rareness of low scores; only 3.5 % of scores fall under I.Q. 120 and 15 % under 130 (and no, this is not because the norms are too high, as self-doubting candidates sometimes suggest). Precisely what is going on with intelligence, non-cognitive personality traits, and brain-related disorders in the high range, and how this leads to creativity and genius in some, is an interesting question and I hope to understand more of it later on.
Jacobsen: What is the structure of the data in high-range test results? Do homogeneous and heterogeneous tests change this?
Cooijmans: Data structure is so important that someone who starts out collecting data for some purpose should ideally think out the database design beforehand. Once you have collected a lot of data, it becomes hard to make big changes to the design. The data structure of high-range tests looks as follows:
At the top level there are five sections:
(1) Descriptive information records for each test or type of personal datum. Each test or datum has a record here, and each record contains fields that hold information such as the test name, its maximum score, its contents types, and whatever further descriptive information there is. Conceptually, one may even imagine the tests themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual tests in a database but think of the database as referring to tests that exist in a reality outside the database.
(2) Candidate records. Each candidate has a record here, and each record has fields that hold the personal data of the candidate, and the candidate’s scores on the respective tests. Notice that a record here has hundreds of fields, but most or all candidates have only part of those hundreds of fields filled, depending on how many tests they have taken (each test has a field). Conceptually, one may even imagine the candidates themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual candidates in a database but think of the database as referring to candidates that exist in a reality outside the database.
Technically speaking, the test scores stored here are redundant insofar as they are also available from section (3), but for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(3) Test submission records. In this complex section, each test has a table, and each table has one record for each submission to that test, and each record has fields that hold information like some personal details of the candidate (corresponding to a record in (2)), score and possibly subscores, and the item scores, so for each item typically 0 or 1 for wrong or right, but any range of item scores is possible. Conceptually, one may even imagine the submitted answers themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual submitted answers in a database but think of the database as referring to submitted answers that exist in a reality outside the database.
Do make certain to understand the difference between “test” and “test submission”. Some say the first when they mean the latter, but the above paragraph illuminates the necessity to distinguish the one from the other.
In this section in particular there is some appropriate redundancy in the form of for instance sex and age of the candidate (also available from section (2)) and scores and subscores (can also be computed dynamically from the item scores). But for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(4) Test norm records. This complex section has a table for each test, and each table has one record for each possible score on that test, and each record has fields that contain the raw score and the corresponding norm (in my case this is a protonorm).
(5) Norming scale records. This section has one record for each norm as may be contained in (4), and each record has fields that hold the norm and corresponding values on other scales for that norm, for instance percentiles, proportions outscored per sex, and I.Q. if the actual norm is not an I.Q. (such as in my case, where protonorms are the norms contained in (4)).
This structure has emerged over time as a natural reflection of the data itself. Someone who starts from scratch may well find that a completely different approach works too. Perhaps one would rather avoid any redundancy? As long as one has thought it over carefully.
Jacobsen: What should be done with homogeneous and heterogeneous tests?
Cooijmans: I consider only heterogeneous tests able to give a good enough indication of general intelligence, and use the term I.Q. only for heterogeneous tests, not for homogeneous tests. Also I refuse to administer homogeneous tests because I do not want to confront people with a score that is a less good indicator of their intelligence, and do not want to facilitate people who want to show such a less good indicator to others and thus give a misleading impression of themselves.
Heterogeneous tests are tests that contain at least two different items types out of verbal, numerical, and spatial (sometimes I use “logical” as a type too). If one wants to study the intercorrelations of different homogeneous tests, the best way to do so is to use a heterogeneous test that has different homogeneous sections or subtests. One can then do correlation analysis or even factor analysis within such a sectioned heterogeneous test. That is also how factor analysis is traditionally done. A great advantage of this approach is that the sections or subtests will always have been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, and that is required for proper factor analysis.
Some of my heterogeneous tests have homogeneous subtests that are normed in their own right to “standard scores” (on the same scale as I.Q.), and in that case one can also compute the correlations of such a subtest with homogeneous subtests that reside in other such compound heterogeneous tests. But I dislike this complication and am striving to move to having only non-compound heterogeneous tests; that is, with sections not normed in their own right, or without sections, just with different item types mingled throughout the test. Another disadvantage of correlations between the subtests from different heterogeneous tests is that those subtests have been taken by different groups of candidates, so that proper factor analysis will not be possible, if one was thinking of that.
Jacobsen: People take multiple tests. They crunch those numbers. An implied claim of a real I.Q. from this crunching of numbers between multiple tests. Is there such a “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests?
Cooijmans: In theory there is, but in practice there are problems that hinder the computation of a real I.Q. across tests. In the high-range community of candidates, many have taken enormous numbers of tests, dozens at least, and sometimes more than a hundred. It is problematic to compute a real I.Q. in the usual way from all taken tests for reasons like the following: The intercorrelations of the tests are mostly unknown, and there are too many intercorrelations for them to ever be known in the first place. Some tests may have bad norms. Some scores may be fraudulent. If a selection is made from the taken tests to narrow it down, this may be a non-representative selection. For example, a candidate having taken thirty tests may like to have a real I.Q. computed from one’s top several scores, which are already way above the real level of the candidate, and then the computed I.Q. will be even higher than the average of those top several scores due to the formula used.
The formulas for computing a real I.Q., such as “Ferguson’s formula”, take the average of the input scores and add something based on the correlations between the tests. With a perfect correlation, the outcome is simply the average. The lower the correlation(s), the higher the outcome. With zero correlation, you get something like a full unit of spread on top of the average. This may be correct in theory, but in practice leads to inflated outcomes.Apart from using a non-representative selection from one’s scores, another cause of inflation with these formulas is the fact that the known correlations between the tests are often underestimations of the true correlations due to incompleteness of the data and restriction of range. The groups who have taken the respective tests have only limited overlap for any pair of tests, and this overlap may suffer from selective reporting, and all in all this depresses the correlations. And lower correlations mean that the formula will yield a higher outcome. Underestimated correlations inflate computed “real I.Q.’s”.
Also, when a person takes multiple tests, a learning effect may take place as a result of which the scores become somewhat higher. This increase then comes in addition to the compensation for imperfect correlation that is built into these formulas for “real I.Q.”
For tests scored by me, I have devised a “qualified average I.Q.”, which tries to avoid the problems with these “real I.Q.’s”. Since I always have the complete data, no selection bias can inflate the average. The problem of underestimated correlations inflating the outcome is avoided by not using the computed correlations but assuming perfect correlations. If it seems unfair not to compensate for imperfect correlations, one may imagine that the learning effect from taking multiple tests replaces this compensation, so to speak. Finally, the computation is resistant to outliers. This is not claimed to be someone’s real I.Q., but I believe it is better than something like “Ferguson’s formula”. The exact formula of the qualified average I.Q. is operational and may be perfected over time as needed.
Jacobsen: IsEnglish-based bias a prominent problem throughout tests? Could this be limiting the global spread of possible test-takers of these tests rather than limiting them to particular language spheres? Although, these tests are taken, to a limited degree, in many countries of the world in all/most regions of the world.
Cooijmans: Such bias is a problem, but how prominent it is depends on what one’s native language is and on whether one knows English. For other Germanic languages it is a smaller problem than for non-Germanic languages, and it is worst for east-Asian languages. The fact that reference aids are allowed solves a big part of it, but for a non-native English speaker there remains a disadvantage, which I have estimated at up to 5 I.Q. points. Without reference aids (on a verbal test that disallows reference aids) this would be more like 30 I.Q. points for this non-native English speaker, and for someone who does not know English altogether it is in my opinion better not to attempt the tests at all.
It certainly limits the global spread of test-takers, especially in the areas where few people know English and the local language is very different from Germanic languages. I have always thought that the best solution for this is that people in such areas create their own tests in their own languages.
In recent years it has become somewhat common for people to try tests in a language they do not know. Of course one has an unpredictable disadvantage then.
Jacobsen: When trying to develop questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability, what is important for verbal, numeral, spatial, logical (and other) types of questions?
Cooijmans: That reservoir will likely be tapped almost regardless of the questions, as general intelligence expresses itself through virtually everything a person does or says. Important are things like having a wide diversity of questions and types of questions, and avoiding localized transient subject matter like idioms, abbreviations, pronunciation matters, and local or fashionable knowledge, as such does not transcend barriers of language, culture, and age. Fundamental knowledge that is the same for everyone in the world is good; knowledge that is bound to a geographic area, in-group, or period is bad. For these reasons, and contrary to what some think, high-brow vocabulary and subject matter are more culture-fair than low-brow vocabulary and subject matter.
One should also be aware that learnt skills have no “g” loading; it is novel tasks that have “g” loading. Candidates sometimes complain that they have no idea what is expected from them when taking a test, or how to tackle it; but that is exactly the intention, that is how intelligence testing works! And candidates may be happy when they see a type of problem they have solved before because they know what to do then; but that is where their intelligence is NOT being used. Those problems have lost their “g” loading for them. So one should try to create problems that are different from what has been seen before, to enforce the use of intelligence.
To illustrate that even esteemed test constructors not always understand the loss of “g” loading of learnt skills, here is an anecdote: Some years ago on a social medium, I saw a test author proudly mention that his young child had scored over I.Q. 160 or so on one of his father’s tests; after extensive coaching by the father/test creator, of course!
Another observation regarding tapping into general cognitive ability: Good test problems are such that solving them is similar to making discoveries in the real world, unravelling the laws of nature and the universe.
Jacobsen: What are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these tests? So, they get artificially low scores on high-range tests. Also, what is the confusion made by smart (and, potentially, not-smart) people about time taken for a test to get a score and the intrinsic intelligence to get said score? You noted the latter point in one of the recent videos answering questions onyour YouTube channel.
Cooijmans: The idiomatic use of “roadblocks” is an example of what should not be in an intelligence test. Such an idiom is only understood within a narrow linguistic region and a restricted time period. It can not be understood without already knowing what it means. It can not be understood from the word itself or its context. The avoidance of idioms requires high intelligence and an abstract-literal mind.
The test instructions state that there is no time limit. Yet some think that their score will be unrealistically high and invalid if they spend “too much” time. It has happened that someone said, “I have now been looking at this test for so long that I can not submit it any more, I found all the answers, it would not be fair”. But that is exactly the intention with untimed tests; that one continues until one finds no further solutions.
The confusion meant in the question is probably the notion that someone who uses less time is smarter than someone who uses more time to arrive at the same score. But the principle of untimed testing is that this is not so, and that “until one finds no further solutions” is the right amount of time, irrespective of how long that is. This principle is based on the finding that when the allowed time is increased on a timed test, the test’s “g” loading rises. With supervised tests one needs to have a time limit for practical reasons, but with unsupervised tests one can leave out the limit entirely.
I must add that I have nothing against supervised tests, provided they have a very broad time limit, something like three hours for a comprehensive test. But this is not feasible in the high-range testing practice. I can not get people from all over the world to travel to a place here where I can test them, and I can not set up testing locations worldwide in all countries. I tried, but the number of candidates willing to make use of such was negligible compared to regular unsupervised tests. So I stopped. And then there is always someone who says, “I would be willing to travel to you if you started with that again”. But one or two people is not enough to justify the significant effort and time put into such a project. If others wish to try it, go ahead.
Jacobsen: What is the intended age-range for high-range tests? How do these account for individuals younger and older than this range?
Cooijmans: From about 16 upward with no upper limit I would say. Older people do decline, but it is important that they participate in order to enable the study of this decline. Younger people are allowed to take the tests, and in practice, 12 years is about the lower limit. But they should be aware that they have not reached their adult level and will score lower than they will later be capable of. The steep increase of intelligence in childhood tapers off at about 16 and becomes shallow then, hence the idea that one enters one’s adult intelligence range at 16.
Another way to answer this would be “after puberty”. Individuals, sexes, and ethnic groups differ in their childhood development, then puberty messes everything up, and after puberty things have mostly settled. That is why childhood studies of mental ability are so misleading; they misrepresent possible sex and ethnic differences. Puberty has normally completed by or before age 16-17. Age of onset of puberty varies greatly per individual, sex, and population, and tends to be one to two years earlier for girls than for boys.
There are no separate norms per age group as that would hide the development of intelligence with age. And one wants to reveal that development, not hide it. Also, all candidates are treated and addressed as mentally mature adults, regardless of age.
Jacobsen: A modestly common/uncommon knowledge of sex differences in the measurement of intelligence: Men do better at visuo-spatial subcomponents and women do better at verbal-emotional processing. What is important in constructing and norming a test if these and other differences exist? What similarities exist to not change this process?
Cooijmans: There are indeed sex differences in aspects of mental ability. In constructing unsupervised high-range tests, it is not possible or meaningful to take these into account. One should just include the widest variety of item types usable in unsupervised tests and focus on high mental ability regardless of sex.
Women have the bad fortune that the aspects on which they are known to outscore men mostly require supervision and timing, and can therefore mostly not be included in unsupervised tests. According to Arthur Jensen in chapter 13 of his book “The g factor”, these aspects are simple arithmetic, short-term memory, fluency (for instance, naming as many as possible words starting with a given letter within a limited time), reading, writing, grammar, spelling, perceptual speed (for instance, matching figures), clerical checking (both speed and accuracy, things like underlining certain letters in a text, or digit/symbol coding), motor coordination, and finger and manual dexterity. This problem is less serious than it seems because these are mostly lowly g-loaded tasks (not by anyone’s decision but because it happens to be so) so that the overall score will not be affected much by their absence, but it may be affected somewhat. This is related to what was observed in my answer to “What are the core abilities…”
In norming, the proportion of high-range candidates outscored should be provided within-sex for reasons of transparency. I.Q. norms should be sex-combined as is usual.
Jacobsen: Cheaters exist. Frauds exist. How do you a) deal with frauds and cheaters on tests and b) prevent fraud and cheating on those tests? Have reference texts been a problem in this? Does artificial intelligence complicate matters more? (If so, how?)
Cooijmans: When I discover that someone committed fraud I will discard the fraudulent score in the database and make a note so that I can exclude that person from further testing and from society admission. This is sometimes complicated by the use of multiple false identities by such a person. If the person is a member of a society I am an administrator of, I will expel the person. In communication with other test creators or societies I may reveal what I know about the person if that seems appropriate. I do not believe there exists an organized system for sharing information about frauds between test creators, perhaps there should.
Attempting to prevent fraud is done, for instance, by not publishing the test itself, letting people prepay, not sending tests to known frauds and so on. And if I find out that answers to particular test items are published or spread somehow, I will do something about it; mostly it comes down to replacing the items, sometimes leading to a revised version of the test. Sometimes a test is withdrawn entirely.
I am not aware of reference texts that were involved in fraud. Artificial intelligence complicates things because frauds might consult it to solve test problems, which is not allowed as the test instructions state not to obtain answers from external sources but only use answers that one thought of by oneself. To reduce this complication I try to create problems for new tests so that current artificial intelligence, insofar as I apprehend it, can not solve them. I try to make the problems so that, once artificial intelligence becomes able to solve them, it will also be able to take tests and join societies on its own accord. I believe that will happen one day, but fear this day lies quite far into the future. If I had to guess I would say half a century.
Jacobsen: It helps to have other data from other tests and personal data for identity verification. What information from other tests is helpful/necessary for research purposes of high-range tests? What is an efficient and appropriate format to provide this score information? What personal data is necessary from candidates, if any? What information would be helpful for research purposes from candidates?
Cooijmans: Scores on other tests should best be reported in a format as follows, insofar as known:
[Test author or issuing organization] [Test name] [Raw score] [I.Q.] [Standard deviation of I.Q. scale used] [Percentile]
Scores should best be grouped by the first field (Test author), of course starting a new line for each score.Nowadays there exist hundreds of tests, and I can not know from the top of my head which test is from which author or organization, so if that first field is left out when reporting scores, which is common, this causes many minutes of extra work in processing that information.
Concerning personal information, at least name, sex, year of birth, country of origin, and highest achieved educational level. Some further information I collect is the educational levels of the biological parents, the presence of a psychiatric disorder, and the presence of such disorders among parents or siblings.
Notice that I find the exact date of birth not strictly needed. It is about studying the development of raw intelligence with age, and with adults, year of birth suffices. In childhood testing, one would want it to the month.
Regarding psychiatric disorders, I do not ask for the particular disorder as that would require too much detail, too many options, too much complication in the statistical processing of it.
And country of origin is a pragmatic imperfect proxy of origin. One might consider asking for race or ethnicity, but such categorization is logistically problematic when one looks into it, has many complications, may be considered unethical by some, and some may refuse to reveal their status.
Other data that might be useful to collect include religiousness and femininity/masculinity (independent of sex). The possible correlation between religiousness and high-range I.Q. could then be established, which many are wondering about. And one could verify the anecdotal observation that intelligent men are more feminine than average men, and intelligent women more masculine than average women. In other words, that there is more gender diffusion in the high range, which would point to an optimum for intelligence somewhere between the average male and female positions on the femininity/masculinity dimension. Notice that the term “gender” is for once used correctly here. I am uncertain whether people would be able to simply report their own position on femininity/masculinity, or whether this would require a test or questionnaire.
Jacobsen: What is the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker now? What is the level of the most intelligent candidate now? What is the mean, median, and mode, of the scores of test-takers’ data gathered so far? Within a range of I.Q. 10 to 190 on an S.D. of 15, when should a candidate consider taking, or in fact take, high-range tests?
Cooijmans: The least intelligent seems to be in the I.Q. 80s. The frequency of such is one in thousands of high-range candidates. The most intelligent is plausibly between 185 and 195. One can not be certain yet about the accuracy of the norms there. And with candidates apparently far below the general population average, a problem is that they tend not to report usable information, so one has to resort to observation, life history facts they happen to mention, and aids like an online writing-to-I.Q. estimator.
The median is protonorm 401 (I.Q. 139) according to the latest computation I did of high-range quantiles. I never compute the mean, but that should be several I.Q. points higher because the distribution is skewed to the high side. The mode is protonorm 387 (I.Q. 137), but one could also say there is a modal range in the 130s. A mode always depends on how wide or narrow one chooses the classes of the frequency table.
People should consider taking high-range tests if they score above the 98th centile on some mainstream test, which is I.Q. 131 (or 130 on some tests that round differently). Below I.Q. 120 there is no reason to try high-range tests, but there is no objection to doing so anyway. There is a grey area from 120 to 130 because one does not score the same on different tests.
Jacobsen: What is efficient means by which to ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test?
Cooijmans: I have always used the square root of the weighted mean correlation of the test with other I.Q. tests as an estimation of the “g” loading. This works well for comparing different high-range tests. It is not a true “g” loading because the tests have not all been taken by the same group of candidates, but by different groups with limited overlaps, correlations obviously being computed for those overlaps. Also, when reported scores from other tests are involved, those may suffer from selective reporting, which depresses the correlations. If all the involved tests had been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, one would be close to a true “g” loading.
Another thing to consider is that high-range tests as I use them are almost all heterogeneous tests, so combining different item types within the test. But, in classical factor analysis, one uses a set of different homogeneous tests that have each been taken by each individual from a group. Typically, these are school exams for the various subjects administered to a school class, or subtests of a comprehensive psychological test like Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales. Via factor analysis, one then computes “g” and other factor loadings per subtest or exam, and these “g” loadings vary greatly and may be very low for some subtests. So this kind of analysis is not so much done with a set of heterogeneous tests; computing correlations between heterogeneous tests is more something seen in high-range psychometrics. In classical factor analysis, wide-range heterogeneous tests are considered pure indicators of “g”, and it is the loadings of the various subtests or exams that one is interested in.
Jacobsen: What is the most precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test, a superset of tests, or a subset of such a superset?
Cooijmans: The first is answered in the previous question. For a superset of tests it is not needed to compute such a loading, the superset can be safely considered a near-perfect indicator of “g”.
Jacobsen: What seem like the most appropriate places for people to start when taking your tests–taking into account their own skill sets, or others’ tests for that matter?
Cooijmans: I would recommend the privacy of one’s home. If “places” is meant non-literally – as one sees, I am not one of those pedants who take everything literally – then a real computer to view the test is best, or at the very least a decent laptop (although I am really against the unneeded use of battery-powered devices). A smart telephone is no place to start.
In case the non-literalness is even more remote, always start with the easiest tests. It is bizarre how it can occur to people to start out with the hardest tests, and how they subsequently can not understand what a score of zero means and keep asking for years thereafter what their I.Q. was on that test and if it means they are “gifted”. By looking at the test norms one can know how hard a test is. Nevertheless, I have recently ordered the list of available tests by difficulty to accommodate this.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Cooijmans: Constructors:Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, a Netherlandic person who withdrew from the I.Q. societies so I can better not name him, Edward Vanhove, Hans Eysenck, Bill Bultas, Laurent Dubois.
Tests: Mega Test, Magma Test, tests from the self-test books by Eysenck, Chimera Test, 916 Test.
Regarding Langdon, studying his tests and statistical reports was instructive, if only because it told me which approaches were not so successful in measuring high-range intelligence. This includes attempting to make it more or less culture-fair, using multiple-choice with a small number of options, item weighting based on item analysis (gives too much weight to a small number of items, and also the fact that single items do not have constant statistical properties undermines the idea of item weighting based on those properties), selecting items for a shorter test based on their statistical behaviour in an earlier longer test (the items’ behaviour is different in different tests), and norming that shorter test based on statistics from the earlier longer test (norms become mostly too high then). Also, that statistics from classical psychometrics, such as the reliability coefficient, are woefully inadequate to assess the quality of a high-range test.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from making these tests and their variants?
Cooijmans: I assume this is about my tests, not the tests by others from the previous question. The main points have already been mentioned in the questions about counterintuitive findings and about “g” not diminishing much in the high range. I could add the observation that intelligence expresses itself in almost everything a person does or says. I did not know that when I started.
In case the question is about the tests from the previous question, I already answered it there for Langdon’s tests. With Hoeflin’s tests, I learnt the norming method of rank equation, and the destructive effects of fraud through retesting, false names, and cooperation. In correspondence with others in the 1990s, I was appalled when people proudly told me they were collaborating in a group to “crack” the Mega Test. When they told me they had retested under their own name or another name (the instructions said the test could be taken only once but Hoeflin allowed retests in practice). When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests under his own name, then his sister’s name, then the son of his sister’s name, with ever-increasing scores. When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests with rather low scores, then had some friendly correspondence with the person from the previous sentence, then took the tests again with the same scores as the highest scores of that person. When someone told me he had missed the Mega Society pass level by half a standard deviation, then retested and qualified. With “retest” I always mean “to take the same test again”.
Several of those meant in the previous paragraph showed me their answers (unasked) and suggested I use them to get into the Mega Society. I had rarely been so shocked and insulted as by the suggestion that I would be capable of such fraud. I do not understand how those types can live with themselves. Having said that, two of them committed suicide in that period.
And of course, such people publicly display or mention their highest (fraudulent) scores, not their honest scores. I remember a phone call with a Netherlandic Mensa member as if it was yesterday; “Yeah, the ‘Mega Test’, I am working on it with some people in Spain and east Asia. Yeah, we have it mostly figured out now, that ‘Mega Test’, ha ha ha…” This person killed himself not long thereafter. Not the “Beheaded Man”, incidentally; the history of I.Q. societies is riddled with suicides, and some of them appear to have made the right decision for once in doing so. That is one thing that gives hope then; that some can indeed not live with themselves in the end.
Jacobsen: I received some decent points about high-range tests from Mahir Wu. Credit to him for the raw materials and permission to reframe those points as questions here. He raises foundational points. First point: item answers should be rigorously unique. Why?
Cooijmans: If multiple answers to a problem are correct, this has disadvantages: The one answer may be easier to find than the other, so that candidates with the same credit may not really be of the same level because they found different answers. And candidates who see more than one possible answer may be confused and not know which is the “right” one. Also, there may be subjectivity in scoring those answers. With only one correct answer, these problems are mostly avoided.
Of course, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, once people start taking the test, it may sometimes occur that alternative valid answers are found still, and then one has to solve this, for instance by revising, replacing, or removing the item. Sometimes this can be done “in place”, especially early on when there have not been many submissions yet, and otherwise this may be done later in a revised version of the test.
And, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, there will always be people who “see” alternative answers through apophenia when they can not find the real answer. The apophenic delusions stick rigidly in their minds and they become convinced they have solved the problem, although the logical flaws are obvious to an objective observer. In popular artificial-intelligence speak, people “hallucinate” when unable to find the real solution. But that is inherent to intelligence testing; escaping this delusional rigidity is part of high intelligence, or rather, is an aspect of having a wide associative horizon. You will need that mental flexibility too when solving real-world problems. Sometimes, you have to take a step back and make a fresh start to eventually find the real solution.
To illustrate that apophenic delusions are very real and persistent, I want to give some examples: I have a Test for Extrasensory Perception, which is exactly what it says. It is not an intelligence test, I did not hide any clues or patterns in it. Still, some years ago an otherwise normal person sent me a document of many pages, describing his decoding and solutions for it in long association chains. He was convinced he had found patterns that I had deliberately put there. Since this was explicitly not the case, this example proves that candidates may suffer from apophenic delusions all by themselves, and that this is not caused by ambiguity of the test items.
And long ago someone published articles in I.Q. society journals, explaining how he had found references to the appearances of particular comets hidden in poems of certain literary authors.
And another one produced a long series of essays, analysing the dates of events related to the Roman Catholic church by counting the days separating the events, finding numerical patterns therein, and concluding that the Vatican was conducting a dirty scheme that would culminate in some horrific project (I am not allowed to disclose it I think) of which he predicted the exact date in the near future.
I am not naming these examples to ridicule people, but to show that such delusions can be extremely strong in apparently sane people. When taking high-range tests, it occurs often. If it happens to you, rest assured, for only in a small minority of cases does it lead to full-blown psychosis.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, the test item answers with ambiguity should be disallowed. Why should these not be allowed, if agreeing with Wu? If disagreeing with Wu, why?
Cooijmans: I agree for the reasons given in my previous answer. But as said, sometimes you only discover ambiguity as test submissions are coming in, when studying comments by candidates.
Jacobsen: Why should test items give sufficient clues for discovery and solution by a test-taker?
Cooijmans: Because otherwise it is impossible to solve the items, obviously.
Jacobsen: Following the last question, why would permission of a mere guessing logic spoil a test?
Cooijmans: Because correct answers that result from guessing do not stem from the candidate’s mental ability being used. Such answers are random variance and thus reduce the test’s reliability, and therefore also its validity. Test items should be made so that the probability of getting them right by accident is so small that, on average, candidates will gain less than one raw score point in the total score by guessing. This does permit multiple-choice items, but they should be cleverly constructed so that the likelihood of a correct guess is very small. For instance, by letting the candidate choose several options from a list instead of just one.
Incidentally, I have heard people suggest that multiple-choice items that can be answered correctly by guessing reveal intuition and/or psychic ability, but even if that is true, I believe that intelligence tests should not measure intuition or psychic ability. I am also not a fan of penalties for wrong answers with multiple-choice; supposedly, this corrects for guessing, but of course, a candidate who chooses a wrong answer, thinking it is right and not guessing, is then penalized for the wrong reason. The penalty does not distinguish between guessing and being simply wrong, and in the latter case, no penalty should apply. For clarity, a penalty constitutes a negative item score, typically a subtraction of a fraction of a point, depending on the number of answering options for that item.
An anecdotal experience regarding multiple-choice tests: Once, the instructions to one of my multiple-choice tests said, “There are no penalties for wrong answers”. After a while I removed that instruction because some candidates demanded a perfect score based on it. They took it as, “You will always get a perfect score no matter what you answer”. Of course they were wrong, because one starts out with zero points at the beginning of the test, not with the maximum, so “no penalties for wrong answers” in no way implies a perfect score. But if people are so willingly and stubbornly taking it the wrong way, I am not going to pain my brain trying to formulate it even better than it already was.
Jacobsen: How can the sufficiency of each test item’s uniqueness become integrated into the overall test (even test schema) to prevent the identical pattern from emerging too much in a single test (or test schema)?
Cooijmans: If I understand the question correctly, I would say that a test should consist of a broad diversity of items with mostly different patterns. They need not be all completely different; maybe two or three of a similar looking pattern are acceptable, provided the implementation of the pattern is different every time, so that the candidate is forced to recognize what is going on in each case.
In some of my tests, like “Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree”, I had series of about ten problems of the same kind in ascending difficulty, and that did not work well. Many candidates were able to solve all the problems in such a series. The items work as examples for each other and become too easy. So I concluded that it is better not to have more than 1 to 3 items of a similar kind in a test, and even those should differ sufficiently in implementation.
Jacobsen: How can the inspiration from, even addition of, other authors’ test items degrade a test’s quality by giving more clues to test-takers to test items otherwise unsolved without them?
Cooijmans: If a test contains an item that is similar to an item in another test by another author, the one item may function as an example to the other and thus make it easier. I have experienced a few times that a difficult problem in one of my tests appeared to have become much easier. Eventually, a candidate told me that a test by another test creator had a very similar but easier problem, and that made my difficult problem suddenly solvable. I then replaced that item.
And, if a candidate is familiar with a particular item variant from other tests and is thus better able to solve such items, those items also lose their “g” loading for that candidate. It becomes a learnt skill, and learnt skills have no “g” loading.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what about the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors?
Cooijmans: If the question is about references inside a test to specific test items by other test authors, I am not aware of such references, possibly because I never look at tests by others. If such references exist, they probably help the candidate, which one may not want. But it is better not to have test items that resemble items by other authors altogether.
Jacobsen: In some sense, is it truly difficult to avoid this issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another inspired–by the former–author, especially as more high-range tests are constructed? Wu references his latest test, “[Mystery],” as an example of an adherence to the close application of this principle, where the evidentiary effects of others’ tests become hard to apply to it. Consequently, results for “[Mystery]” are submitted much less.
Cooijmans: With so many high-range tests in existence, it will be getting harder to avoid similarities between tests by different authors indeed. I myself never look at tests by others and create problems independently. In an earlier question about avoiding or minimizing test constructor bias I name some independent sources of inspiration. These do not include tests by others. One should never look at tests by others for inspiration for new test items!
Jacobsen: Why should scale and norm not be overly subjective? Wu references T. Prousalis–link– and you–link, link. Also, why does a median score for many tests with a corresponding IQ of 145 (SD15), or higher, make little sense?
Cooijmans: Norms should be objective and correct, otherwise they are not comparable between tests. A few possible causes of incorrect norms are the following: When a beginning test scorer starts out administering tests, initially one will only have reported scores by candidates to base the norms on. Unfortunately, many candidates are dishonest in reporting scores, leaving out lower scores and reporting the higher ones, or even reporting retests or fraudulent scores. This gives an upward bias, and the norms based thereon may be ridiculously too high, even 10 to 20 I.Q. points too high on average. In the longer term, this may sort itself out as one acquires more, and more true, data about the candidates’ scores. Theoretically, this could also be solved by different test constructors sharing their candidate data to thus make the candidates’ true scores on other tests available, but I believe this might be unethical and a violation of privacy. I know some test designers are currently publishing candidate scores online, but that too seems unethical, and also I do not know if that published data is trustworthy and am hesitant to use it.
For information, a few test creators have sent me their complete data for a particular test of theirs, including candidate names, and I have scored a test by another author (Bill Bultas) myself in the past, so for those tests I have unbiased data.
Another cause of incorrect norms is megalomania by the test creator. There exist authors who delusionally reckon themselves to be profoundly intelligent, but really have much lower I.Q.’s, typically in the 130s to 140s at most. So when they receive test submissions by people whom they perceive as being at roughly their level of understanding, they feel compelled to give out much too high I.Q. scores, otherwise they would have to admit to themselves they are not really as intelligent as they believe.
A median of I.Q. 145 or higher is unrealistic. The high-range population is roughly the upper segment of the general population, cut off at about I.Q. 130. This is not a perfectly clean cut, but if it were, and for the sake of illustration, the following would be necessarily true: With a clean cut at 131 (98th centile) the median would be 135 (99th centile, so halfway the cut and the top). With a clean cut at 135 (99th centile) the median would be 139 (99.5th centile). A median of 145 (99.87th centile) would imply a clean cut at 142 (99.74). This is not consistent with the known population of high-range candidates; most of them are below 142, or at least I believe the evidence for that is more than sufficient.
My experience is that the median of many high-range scores is almost always between 136 and 141. The fundamental cause of this, I think, is that only from the low to mid-130s onward people are interested in intellectual endeavours like taking difficult tests. Below that, it tapers off steeply. Above that, it tapers shallowly, and that shallow curve reflects the actual distribution of those high I.Q.’s in the general population. And this distribution is apparently such that the median of people wanting to take high-range tests ends up around 136-141. The mode is several points lower than the median, the mean several points higher. The mode probably represents the point from whereon the high-range distribution follows the general population distribution (upward). The mode is, more or less, the cut-off point meant in the previous paragraph.
Jacobsen: The following are questions formulated based on input questions provided by Matthew Scillitani. What is the process of making preliminary norms before submissions have been given for a test?
Cooijmans: If it is a fully new test and no data exists for its contents at all, I estimate the minimum raw scores that a Glia Society member respectively a Giga Society should obtain. So for each problem, I look at it and ask myself, “Should a Glia/Giga Society member be able to solve this?” Then I interpolate between those two scores, and extrapolate outward until I reach the edges of the test, where I taper with 5 protonorm points per raw score point. The edges are each sized half the square root of the total possible raw score range.
Jacobsen: There seems to be a stigma around high-range tests. Is there a process to normalize taking them or having them exist in the first place?
Cooijmans: There are indeed many who do not take high-range tests seriously, and this includes prominent figures like the late Hans Eysenck. In one of his “test yourself” books, I remember he was skeptical about the possibility of measuring intelligence in the high range, and even ridiculed it. He provided a number of absurdly complex problems “for the super-intelligent”, which appeared to be a parody on high-range testing.
Much of the distrust and denial regarding high-range testing stems from the fear that one might not oneself belong to the most intelligent; it is comfortably reassuring to say to oneself, “Those tests are just puzzles by amateurs and their scores are meaningless, we can not measure intelligence beyond the 99th centile”. It is a way to protect one’s delusion that no one is verifiably smarter than oneself.
Another cause of the stigma is the inescapable fact that there are fewer women than men in the high range. This is such a taboo that denying the validity of high-range testing is imperative to the politically correct academic, if only for that reason.
A possible process to normalize high-range testing would be to establish it as a recognized branch of psychology at universities. I suspect this would require that we first reverse the decades-long neo-Marxist occupation of academia and make universities into places of genuine science practised by the most intelligent again. A concrete application of high-range psychometrics would be to devise proper admission procedures for universities to undo the dumbing-down that has taken place there over the past half century. The fact that the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination were about the only mainstream tests with validity in the high range illustrates how appropriate high-range testing is in the context of college and university.
For completeness, it should be mentioned that psychologist Lewis Terman (1877-1955) has tried to measure intelligence in the high range with two forms of his “Concept Mastery Test”. These were applied to subjects selected as children based on childhood scores of 140 and higher, and followed up in adulthood with the two Concept Mastery Tests. These were verbal tests highly loaded on vocabulary, not permitting references aids. In an unsupervised situation (which was and is how they are typically administered) it is exceedingly easy to cheat on such a test by using dictionaries and thus score absurdly far above one’s real level. Also, non-natives of the English language have a large disadvantage, in the order of 30 I.Q. points. So while these tests were non-robust against cheating and strongly culture-dependent, at least he tried. Since Terman has also been criticized for his belief in eugenics, heredity of intelligence, and racial differences therein, he forms an intersection between high-range psychometricians and hereditarians, so to speak.
Having mentioned the Concept Mastery Tests, I should warn that the scores mostly quoted for them are raw scores, not I.Q.’s. Ronald K. Hoeflin has administered those tests for a while too, also unsupervised, so one should not rely too much on possible reported Concept Mastery scores from test candidates as they may be hugely inflated through fraud.
Jacobsen: Have test construction and norming processes evolved in the aggregate for you?
Cooijmans: Of course, when one has been doing something for decades, one has implemented improvements. If I have to give examples, I have become more concerned with locking in a unique answer and avoiding ambiguity and subjectivity in scoring, and am also inclining more to having tests contain a surplus of difficult problems and a minority of easier ones. Regarding norming, one of the first things I learnt was that z-score equation – equating means and standard deviations – results in incorrect norms because raw test scores tend not to behave linearly, which is required for z-score equation to make sense. So I went with rank equation. Over the years I automated ever more of the process, so that now I can norm a test in 10 to 30 minutes mostly, while originally this took several whole days.
I also learnt to formulate problems better to avoid misunderstanding. For instance, people skilled at mathematics may have a bizarre deformation that makes them interpret numbers differently from normal humans. If I say, “There are three apples on the table”, any sane person will understand that there are three apples on the table. But not mathematicians! The mathematician will understand that there are three OR MORE apples on the table. Because the mathematician thinks, “If there are four or five or six… apples on the table, there are three apples on the table too”. So to the mathematician you have say, “There are exactly three apples on the table”.
Jacobsen: What are the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test?
Cooijmans: Easiest: Finishing off the eventual test once the problems have been conceived, and creating the database fields that will receive the incoming submissions. Also, norming is easy on the whole. Hardest: Creating the problems. This has got ever harder, the more tests I made. I try not to repeat myself too much, and try to take into account that the Internet as a search tool has become ever more powerful. The various types of fraud are hard to deal with. I have no sympathy or tolerance for the individuals behind it. The hardest nowadays is to create test problems that are robust against the developments that enable dishonest people to cheat. Those who have spread test answers should reveal the names of the recipients of the answers, so that we can clean up the statistics. And if they sold answers for money, they have to refund, and possible profit they made by investing the fraudulently acquired money should be donated to a good cause.
Jacobsen: Of your tests–51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special to you?
Cooijmans: To name a few, Test of the Beheaded Man, Cooijmans Intelligence Test (any form), Daedalus Test, The Nemesis Test, Test For Genius (any form), Only Idiots, The Gate, The Piper’s Test, Dicing with death, The Smell Test. Each in their own way, they demand the candidate to operate at the summit of cognition in ways that are not trivial but tie in to the essence of existence itself. That is what I have generally striven for.
Jacobsen: In pre-2000, you wrote some articles in Netherlandic on test design. Are there any insights from those articles not replicated here or elsewhere worth replicating, or reiterating, here?
Cooijmans: I looked through the articles, and the following points may be worth mentioning:
Marilyn vos Savant occurs briefly in one article; she is known for having “the world’s highest I.Q.” according to the Guinness book of world records. I would like to add here that someone once showed me a copy of a page from Megarian No. 6 (October 1982) where her actual scores on the Stanford-Binet and preliminary Mega tests are reported. “Megarian” was the journal of the Mega Society then.
Also nice is the early history of Mensa, as related by founder Victor Serebriakoff in one of his books, which was reviewed by David Gamon in the Mensa International Journal of January/February 1995. The founders at the time believed to be selecting members at the level of 1 in 3000 (some sources say 1 in 6000) but later discovered a mistake in the procedure, as a result of which they had been selecting at 1 in 50. Not wanting to send the bulk of members away again, they left it as it was.
Also mentioned somewhere is Kevin Langdon, creator of the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test (1977 I think) and founder of the Four Sigma society. If one is interested in high-range psychometrics, the statistical reports published by Langdon in the 1970s and later are worth looking at. Langdon’s approach differed from Hoeflin’s in that Langdon first expressed the candidate’s performance as “scaled score” (some conversion of the raw performance) and then equated means and mean deviations of scaled scores and scores on other tests, resulting in a linear relation between I.Q. and scaled score. Hoeflin, on the other hand, normed raw scores directly via rank equation, resulting in a non-linear relation that reveals the non-linear nature of simple raw scores.
This is a good time to explain there are different ways to arrive at a scaled score: The simplest way is to scale raw scores linearly from 0 to 100 or 0 to 1000, for instance. Some test constructors have done that (Alan Aax and Rijk Griffioen, I remember) but it brings no advantage compared to raw scores; the non-linearity of raw scores remains, obviously, when the relation between raw and scaled scores is linear.
If the goal is to obtain a more linear (intervallic) scale, there has to be some weighting or balancing, and a crude but solid method is to give a certain class of problems that appear harder or more important extra credit a priori, regardless of item statistics. This was done by Hoeflin with the Ultra Test, where non-verbal problems get two points. This is effective and without problems, but the resulting weighted scores are still far from linear, if one had any concerns about that.
A more refined way is to give items individual weights based on item analysis. In theory this should yield an intervallic scale, but there are serious disadvantages: (1) A small number of problems tend to carry most of the weight after weighting thus, which is always dangerous; (2) It adds an extra layer of sampling error because one relies on the correctness of the item statistics, and my experience is that item statistics are not constant but differ from sample to sample, so that one is building on quicksand as it were; (3) The intuitive simplicity of a raw score is lost; the candidate can not know the number of correct answers from the weighted score.
My preference is to use a simple raw score, or in cases where it seems appropriate a crude weighting that does not rely on item statistics, such as in the example of the Ultra Test. If these methods do not result in a meaningful ranking of candidates, that test is bad to begin with and no advanced item weighting will fix it. I accept that raw scores are non-linear, and the conversion to linearity takes place in the norming of raw score to I.Q.
That last sentence leads to the question, “How do we know that I.Q. is a linear scale?” The answer is that I.Q.’s are deviation scores; they denote a distance to the mean in a hypothetical normal distribution. Note the word “hypothetical”; it is not claimed that intelligence follows a normal distribution in the physical reality. But the tacit assumption in statistics is that when a distribution is normal (Gaussian), its underlying scale is linear (intervallic). So when you force test scores into a normal distribution, you create a linear scale, or that is the unspoken idea. This is expressed in the way we identify points on the scale in terms such as “2 standard deviations above the mean”. This implies an underlying linear scale; after all, if the scale were not linear, the one standard deviation would not be the same as the other, so it would make no sense to say “2 standard deviations above the mean”! In fact, the mere computation of an arithmetic mean assumes an underlying intervallic scale, as it involves summation.
So the bottom line is, if we take care that the frequencies of I.Q.’s beyond various points of the scale do not differ too much from their theoretical rarities in the normal distribution, we may assume that I.Q. is linear. I say this without claiming that deviation I.Q.’s are the best way to express intelligence; but I do not have a better way at the moment.
Jacobsen: Some submitted questions anonymously. These are the adaptations of those questions: Personally, do you know any geniuses? If you do not know any personally, where are all of the geniuses?
Cooijmans: I have to say that when it gets anonymous, the quality goes down. Imagine that I answered “no” to the first question! How insulting that would be to everyone I know! Since a genius is someone who exercises a lasting influence in any field, inherently it can only be known in hindsight who was one, like long after the genius’ death. It is well possible that several people I know will turn out to be geniuses, but we do not know yet who they are.
In history books you will find a lot of identified geniuses.
Jacobsen: Why refer to these individuals in this way, i.e., as geniuses? What traits characterise them?
Cooijmans: The word “genius” comes from the Latin “gignere”, meaning to conceive, to bring forth, to cause. Francis Galton used the word “eminence” for what is now mostly called genius.
The traits of genius, according to me, are intelligence, conscientiousness, and a wide associative horizon. Genius is not talent. It requires talent, but talent alone does not suffice. One will need to apply that talent in order to make a lasting contribution.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself as a genius? If so, why? If not, why not?
Cooijmans: Naturally, someone of my enormous modesty and humility would never call oneself a genius. I leave that to the scores of future generations who will devote their lives to the study of my work.
Jacobsen: What do you think has been the contribution of your I.Q. Tests for the High Range? Is it a work for study by others or a hobby?
Cooijmans: The contribution lies in studying the measureability of intelligence in the high range, and some other questions related to that as stated at https://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/mission.html . It is certainly worthy of being studied by others, and others should also undertake such study independently. It is not just a hobby, except in the sense that one can make one’s hobby into one’s work.
Jacobsen: Who are others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence?
Cooijmans: This can only be answered properly for people who were (already) working longer ago, before the current generation of high-range testers. That would be Lewis Terman, Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Xavier Jouve, and Laurent Dubois. For the ones who came after these, it is too soon to judge their merit.
In addition, there have been some people who created tests that looked truly good to me, but who only kept scoring their tests briefly and then withdrew from testing, so that little or no usable data resulted. These people exemplify what I said a few questions ago: that talent is not genius, but merely a requirement for genius. They had talent, but did not use it to make a lasting contribution to high-range testing.
Jacobsen: What is the most common mistake people make when submitting feedback about your tests?
Cooijmans: Assuming that they have understood a test item correctly, and then commenting on it from that assumption.
Jacobsen: What aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing?
Cooijmans: It can be confusing if people send feedback before sending answers. I have to be careful not to help them by responding. Nevertheless, in case the feedback concerns a mistake in a test problem, it can be useful, especially when a test is very new.
Jacobsen: The most common Marathon Test Numeric Section score is a perfect 44 out of 44. What lessons have you learned from this high-end score saturation?
Cooijmans: That the problems are not hard enough. Also that a series of similar problems of increasing difficulty tends to be too easy on the whole. And that, to make a numerical test hard enough, either very difficult mathematics-biased problems are needed, or problems that implement a pattern that needs to recognized. The latter seem the most fair, the former seem to give an advantage to people skilled at mathematics.
Jacobsen: When creating high-range questions, is there a consideration of steering test takers toward wrong answers? Are extant questions ever modified in this way?
Cooijmans: Obviously, steering test-takers toward wrong answers is the whole point of creating good test items, not only in high-range testing but also in mainstream intelligence tests. There is even a word for it: distractors. Multiple-choice tests, omnipresent in mainstream psychological testing, contain answering options that are wrong but appear more plausible than the intended correct answer.
Thus, a candidate who really can not solve any problem at all will score below the chance guessing level, and this lower level is called the “pseudo-chance level”. For instance, if a test has 40 problems and 5 answering options per item, the chance guessing level is 8 correct, but the pseudo-chance level may be only 5 correct due to distractors.
Extant questions are not generally modified in this way.
Jacobsen: Which books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics have provided helpful accurate understandings of psychological measurement, psychometric concepts, etc., for you? Others may find some fruitful plumbing there.
Cooijmans: The most specific sources regarding high-range testing are the various statistical or norming reports by Kevin Langdon and Ronald K. Hoeflin, as issued by them in the 1970s through 1990s (Hoeflin only started in the 1980s I think). These helped to see how high-range tests are normed, and also aided in the interpretation of scores on a lot of those old American tests like the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Miller Analogies Test, Army General Classification Test and more. The “Omni sample” of the Mega Test contains many scores of those versus Mega Test scores, and as such is an important anchor of high-range tests to the general population, especially so since those old tests in some cases did discriminate into the high range. This can not be said about the newer dumbed-down versions of the educational and military tests, whose validity tends to end at the 99th centile, and for whose interpretation one should consult the information provided by the relevant issuing organizations.
What one can see for instance in the Omni sample is that the old G.R.E., S.A.T., and Army General Classification Test correlated quite well with the Mega Test, while on the other hand the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales and Stanford-Binet, by many regarded as the gold standard of I.Q. testing, appeared to lack any validity in the high range. This observation holds true until today in data collected by myself, except for the old Army General Classification Test on which I have almost no data.
Then, an actual text book on psychometrics I have studied is the Netherlandic “Testtheorie” by P.J.D. Drenth and K. Sijtsma from 1990. This covers both classical psychometrics and the newer item-response theory.
Another useful book, a bit more general, is “Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences”, second edition, by Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, from 1988.
An important book on intelligence testing is “The g factor” by Arthur Jensen, from 1998. While not intended as a psychometrics text book, it does contain a lot of advanced information on psychometrics, including some factor analysis, often in the footnotes.
As it happens, there is also an e-book called “The g factor” by Christopher Brand, from 1996, also containing information on psychometrics and some factor analysis.
A book on statistics in general (not psychometrics) I have studied is the Netherlandic “Statistiek in de praktijk” by David S. Moore and George P. McCabe. I see there is an English version too, “Introduction to the practice of statistics; 2nd edition” (1993).
A book dealing specifically with multivariate statistics such as correlation, regression, and factor analysis is “Using multivariate statistics” (third edition) by Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell (1996).
I also still have my mathematics books from secondary school, one of which contains chapters on statistics and probability calculation. Occasionally I look through those to refresh these basics of my knowledge in this field.
Finally I want to add that the history of statistics and of mathematics is informative regarding psychometrics. Reading about such will teach you that statistics has been closely related to psychological testing since the 19th century, and that probability calculation was developed for the purposes of gambling and insurance.
The history of mathematics in general, found for instance in “A concise history of mathematics” by Dirk Jan Struik, tells us that mathematics originates in the early days of agriculture, cities, and large-scale administration. That is, within the past ten thousand years or so, the holocene, after the last glacial period. Computing the area of parcels of land required mathematics.
I suspect that the intelligence of the people coming out of the last glacial period was primarily of a visual-spatial nature, and as they became settled and practised agriculture, built cities, and administrated societies, they needed higher numerical ability as well as written language. I imagine that spoken language existed long before that, originally in the form of words without grammar some two million years ago to coordinate hunting in groups in early Homo, and later on with grammar, perhaps in the days of Homo sapiens.
Language is not unique to humans incidentally, but exists in other beings too, such as birds, primates, and whales. Animals like crows are likely at the intelligence level of early Homo, but I am uncertain if their physicality will allow a further development such as has taken place in Homo. Key points like the manufacturing of tools and mastery of the fire may require arms, hands, fingers, and thumbs such as humans have.
Visual-spatial ability is also not restricted to humans, but found in many animal species, in particular to enable predating. As such, visual-spatial ability should be a few hundred million years old, as that is when the first predators came.
The importance of this history of abilities is that when we test abilities now, the results we get, such as the intercorrelations of various abilities, are as it were a fossil record of this evolution. A development that I believe takes place in civilized societies is the erosion of the original visual-spatial ability in favour of verbal ability. A high level of verbal ability in the absence of the foundation of visual-spatial ability, I think, leads to dishonesty, deceit, evil, decadence, and societal collapse.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.
Cooijmans: I never know what to respond to here.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics. October 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, October 1). On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (October 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics [Internet]. 2024 Sep; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Ms. Oleksandra Romantsova is the Executive Director (2018-present) of the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022 under her and others’ leadership in documenting war crimes. This will be a live series on human rights from a leading expert in an active context from Kyiv, Ukraine. Here, we talk about updates from April 17 to May 23.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there were political prisoners exchanged. Some names reported by the Associated Press include American Paul Whelan, journalist Evan Gershkovich, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, a dissident. When was the last time a political prisoner exchange like this occurred?
Oleksandra Romantsova: Most prisoners are politicians like Ilya Yashin or Vladimir Kara-Murza. For your understanding, Kara-Murza was poisoned twice, in 2015 and 2017, before he was sent to jail. He has criticized Putin from the beginning, long before it became mainstream. Among these prisoners are human rights defenders, journalists, and even an artist who started an anti-war campaign in her unique way. She changed price tags in the supermarket to include questions about the war.
These people have been sentenced to years in prison because they were accused of betraying the Russian Federation or criticizing the army. One of them is Oleg Orlov, a human rights defender. He was our partner in 2014 when we both conducted a field mission to document war crimes in Donbas until I lost access. We did this together when Ukrainian observers were cut off from that territory. Only Russian human rights defenders could collect information and bring it to us until 2016.
After that, access was completely denied to anyone. So, what this means is that Putin wants a specific individual who was arrested in Berlin—Vadim Krasikov, who assassinated a Chechen dissident. Krasikov is the main figure Putin wants in exchange, even though the USA hasn’t handed over anyone from their jails. Instead, they have exchanged hackers and spies who cooperated with Slovenia and Germany. Germany was the most difficult because they did not want to release Krasikov, who had publicly killed someone in broad daylight without any cover-up, making it clear it was an execution.
In exchange, Putin wants Krasikov and seven others so that he will give up twice as many people. All of these individuals have criticized Putin, and they will not only be victims but also witnesses to all the crimes. For Ukraine, this is positive news, but it doesn’t significantly change the situation regarding civilian detainees, war prisoners, or political prisoners from Ukraine who are currently held in Russian Federation jails. So, while it’s good news, it doesn’t change the overall situation for Ukraine. It is also noteworthy that Putin is upset because he had to release people he wanted to be silenced forever.
Jacobsen: The arrival of the F-16s to help Ukraine is significant because they are American-made. This is a major positive development for the Ukrainian side regarding air superiority.
Romantsova: Over the last three nights, the Russians have been trying to target infrastructure for these airplanes because it is about receiving them and the necessary infrastructure to house and maintain them. Where will we keep them? Where will we maintain them? Some of our pilots have taken special courses on how to use them. Interestingly, this marks an entirely new phase; it was less widely reported than other news. The call for F-16s was loud and constant, but we’ve finally received them.
This could have happened earlier; it is typically Ukrainian to persistently pursue something. However, it will greatlysupport our air defence system, particularly on the frontline. On the frontline, we call the bombs dropped by military airplanes “cops,” and right now, they are the biggest threat and cause of casualties for those on the frontline. So that’s important, and yes, we are glad.
Jacobsen: There has been further commentary from the Foreign Minister of Ukraine about the importance of having China help with talks or finding common ground to end the war. Former President Trump has been claiming that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in one day. The Russian UN ambassador says he cannot. However, at the same time, people might be surprised to learn that people are still living their lives in Ukraine. They are used to war at this point. The largest music festival returned despite the ongoing conflict. So, people continue to live their lives. It is an admirable cultural quality. What else?
Oleksandra: So, you mentioned that there is only a little news, but we do have this news that the Russians bombed and destroyed one of the buildings of a children’s hospital and a social center. Now, we are collecting money for the first step of rebuilding it. The old historical buildings will not try to rebuild; instead, they’ll build something that can serve the necessary functions.
Jacobsen: These events are periodic, as you will find in the news cycle. For instance, when Remus and I went to Ukraine, they launched their largest drone strike of the war during that period. I believe there were over 100 drones and missiles when we arrived in Odessa. Then, they had the largest snowstorm, a once-in-a-century snowstorm from Moscow. Trains and buses were shut down, and people got someone with a van to help them reach their destination. Russia has launched its largest barrage of drones in the last seven months, with 89 Shahed drones. The Ukrainian Olympic Chief celebrates Russia’s limited presence at the Paris Olympics. Do you have any cultural comments, specifically the limited presence at the Olympics?
Romantsova: Exactly. I hope Belarus and Russia will never have any team in the Olympics because it’s still strange for me. Russia uses sports and athletes to demonstrate the regime’s development and achievements.
These sportsmen fully support the war. They are part of the public campaign to support the war from the Russian side. So, that’s why I’m exactly against it. Is it fair that some sportsmen who don’t have a country can go to the Olympics? Yes, it is.
But you can check it. You can look at the specific athletes who have the registration. Look at their official page; they have no personal photographs, only official positions spread through the media. I’m terrified that the Olympic Committee doesn’t even want to consider it. These people support the aggression against Ukraine, and yet they’re welcome to the Olympic Games. Yes, there are fewer participants than from North Korea, but still.
Jacobsen: A Turkish corvette was delivered to Ukraine to help, and there was something more in your expertise. There was an investigation into the deaths of 50 Ukrainian POWs in a barrack two years ago. Do you have any insights for readers about that?
Romantsova: Yes, we do. Russia has taken war prisoners and civilians, and now, after two and a half years, they’ve started to accuse these people and bring them to court. Not all, but it’s becoming more common. It’s illegal because international humanitarian law states that war prisoners cannot be judged for doing their job as soldiers.
So, from one side, it’s legal. Conversely, these cases are completely falsified, creating false accusations. One example is Maksym Butkevych, a human rights defender.
In March 2022, he decided to stop his human rights work and join the army on the front line. That happened in March 2022. He first went to the training base and then to the front line. They fabricated a case against him, accusing him of shooting at civilians in a city in eastern Ukraine, even though he wasn’t on the front line at the time. He was at the training center when the alleged incident occurred.
So, they don’t even care about that. He received a 15-year sentence or something similar based on a falsified case. It’s occupied Luhansk, where this court or trial hearing surrounding the war prisoners is happening. It’s a mockery of justice. We already have 161 bodies returned in April this year, prisoners of war and illegally imprisoned civilians who died in the prisons of the Russian Federation
Jacobsen: The last time we talked, we discussed Shoigu’s potential replacement, which is now in. It’s a small change; someone was fired, and someone replaced them. So, when we speak about releasing people, we speak about such situations. I see. He died.
Romantsova: It’s common. You can find many examples of people being taken to prison. It’s important to understand that prisoner support is a special status given by International Humanitarian Law for protection. Russia’s declaration explicitly gives this status. They talk about their prisoner support.
After that, they don’t feed them, don’t provide medical support, don’t allow them to be in touch with their family, and they even start trial hearings around them. They completely violate the purpose of the status of war prisoners. So, it looks like this.
The cause of death is unknown. The conditions in these prisons are dire. If you’re 55 years old, as Alexander was, you’re not going to be resilient to food deprivation, water deprivation, and other hardships. The body is less resilient at that age.
Jacobsen: What are the human rights implications of Macron giving the green light for Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with Western weapons?
Romantsova: It’s interesting—Macron doesn’t give us weapons but permits us. Thank you. So, it’s interesting. The information we have from the USA is significant because the USA provided permission. First of all, they discussed Crimea, emphasizing that Crimea is Ukraine. So, in Crimea, they can target anywhere.
Second, we have this situation where, before, the USA’s legislation regarding support and weapons excluded specific provisions. They excluded the possibility of using American weapons or missiles in connection with the Azov Regiment. This was a problem because Azov is a significant part of Ukraine’s military structure. However, Congress voted and changed it.
We think that’s why Azov had a small conflict here in Ukraine with one former deputy, not ex-PM, but a prominent member named Farion. I will find it. She was killed, and they tried to show that Azov did it.
She had criticized them, but it’s ridiculous in this situation. It brings us back to where we were before.
Jacobsen: So, regarding the living conditions now, what is the general morale of the people within Kyiv?
Romantsova: Now we have enough light. Before that, we had temperatures of 40 degrees Celsius. We use the metric system here. We didn’t have lights or electricity then, so you couldn’t turn on the air conditioning. Imagine, plus 40 degrees, even at night—you can’t relax because it’s so hot. But now, we’ve repaired part of our nuclear power station and seen in the last three days that we haven’t had a blackout. It’s so strange, and now you can use the air conditioner.
The temperature is coming down, so it’s becoming easier. Thinking about how your happiness and comfort improve as conditions become easier is interesting. So now, it’s starting to be easier here.
Jacobsen: I recall you mentioning no light during one of our calls. It was nighttime and pitch black while we were conducting the interview. This highlights the different contexts. What about the price of goods and services? How are people managing day-to-day despite the war?
Romantsova: It’s a question of whether you have light at all. For example, our office has a system that provides light even when the general power is cut off. But it’s still a problem for productivity. Here in Ukraine, we have an economy based on various types of production—food, technology, and more.
Production needs electricity all the time. Blackouts severely damage the economy. People need to find out if they can produce or trade anything. It’s a huge challenge because, in Ukraine, we have many resources to generate electricity, and we usually sell it. Our economy never had this problem of not having light or electricity before.
But now, all of this—the main goal of Putin’s decision to destroy electricity infrastructure—was to ruin our economy. People, for example, might leave or something. But until now, I don’t feel it’s that bad. We all understand that winter will be problematic because, right now, dealing with cooling is not as big of a problem. But heating will be crucial because it gets very cold here in the winter, and you cannot heat homes without a stable energy supply.
Or, in another way, people are moving from cities to villages where they can use fireplaces and other methods like this. So, it’s a huge dilemma for the future. It’s one of the consequences of the war that might become critical at some point.
Further Internal Resources (Chronological, yyyy/mm/dd):
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Raed Jarrar is an Arab-American political advocate based in Washington, DC. Since he immigrated to the U.S. in 2005, he has worked as a lobbyist on political issues pertaining to the U.S. engagement in the Arab world.
Widely recognized as an expert on political, social, and economic developments in the MENA region, he has testified in numerous Congressional hearings and briefings. He is a frequent guest on national and international media outlets in Arabic and English, including CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Sky News Arabia. He has been published in the New York Times and quoted in media outlets including the Washington Post, Al Jazeera, the Hill, the Guardian, Newsweek, and more.
Raed was raised in countries all across the Middle East. He is a graduate of the University of Baghdad, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree, and the University of Jordan, where he received his Master’s Degree, both in architectural engineering. His Master’s thesis focused on post-war reconstruction. He is on the Advisory Board of the organization Airwars.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here to discuss the UAE and the States with Raed Jarrar, who is the Advocacy Director for DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now), an organization that focuses on promoting democracy, human rights, and justice in the Middle East and North Africa region. Thank you for sending this note to me regarding the visit of UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed to the United States on September 25th. I believe it’s an important topic. What is the motivation for this trip, and why is this particular issue urgent? People might be wondering, “There are so many conflict zones and crises around the world, why focus on this?”
I, myself, just returned from Ukraine a week ago, and there are certainly different conflicts happening globally.
Raed Jarrar: So, let me set the tone for the emphasis on this particular visit and its significance in highlighting some of the ongoing humanitarian crises, particularly in countries like Sudan and Yemen. Two key points make this visit significant.
First, this visit is unprecedented. The White House has never before invited a UAE president. This will be the first time a UAE president visits the White House, which is historically significant. The second key point is the timing.
Unfortunately, this visit signals that the White House is once again deprioritizing human rights in its foreign policy. For me, this trip marks the end — the final nail in the coffin — of President Biden’s promise to center human rights in U.S. foreign policy. This administration has failed to deliver on those promises. The fact that they are inviting the head of the UAE, while the UAE has been implicated in various regional conflicts, is revealing. Their forces are involved in Yemen’s civil war and Sudan’s conflict, and they are violating human rights domestically. They have also been linked to spyware companies, such as NSO Group, that have targeted dissidents and political activists globally. The level of human rights violations is astounding, yet the White House is willing to welcome them because of its strategic interests involving Israel, Palestine, and U.S. priorities in the region. That’s why this trip is significant — it’s not just about the UAE; it reflects President Biden’s decision to disregard his commitments to prioritizing human rights.
Jacobsen: There is a general perception in North American, particularly American, politics among dissidents and critics of any administration that politicians lie when necessary. So, this situation might seem typical of past administrations’ foreign policies. However, is this shift more influenced by individuals within Biden’s cabinet rather than Biden himself?
Jarrar: That’s a good question. But the real issue here isn’t simply that a politician has lied. It’s true that politicians lie, in America and around the world. However, what’s unexpected is for a president to campaign on a platform and then do the exact opposite, this doesn’t fall under the category of a necessary political lie; it’s more about breaking campaign promises. It’s a betrayal of the American people who voted for him, expecting him to uphold certain values in office. This is far beyond the typical dishonesty expected of politicians.
As for who is behind these decisions, the truth is that no one can say for sure. I don’t think even people within the administration know with certainty. What we do know is that this administration has shown, over the past couple of years, a lack of direction and leadership. There is no clear strategy or leadership to formulate and implement policies effectively.
We’re seeing this in Israel-Palestine, for example. The administration has said repeatedly that they will push Israel for a ceasefire, and they have failed time and time again. This is mind-boggling. We are the strongest country in the world, and we continue to provide Israel with weapons while they openly oppose what the White House claims to be a clear instruction for a ceasefire. That is truly baffling.
Jarrar: The White House has no capacity to exercise its political leverage to actually make Israel — and Prime Minister Netanyahu — abide by a ceasefire agreement that was endorsed by the Security Council and by President Biden himself. It feels like no one is behind the wheel. Look at what’s going on in Lebanon. The lack of a ceasefire agreement in Gaza is now spreading into a regional war. President Biden has repeatedly said that he won’t allow this to become a regional war.
Yet, Israel continues bombing thousands of targets in Lebanon, simply because it refuses to sign a ceasefire agreement. They are using U.S. weapons and political cover for these actions. This administration is unable to use its political leverage because there’s no one in control. So, the answer to your question is: we don’t know. We don’t know who is calling the shots.
There are no shots being called. It’s on autopilot, with decisions being made day by day. It’s all confusing, especially when you consider that on the same day the U.S. is training members of the Lebanese Armed Forces, we are also dropping U.S. bombs on Lebanon. It’s a deeply confused policy. What’s happening with the UAE isn’t part of any comprehensive plan. It’s just the administration reacting to immediate concerns. They think the UAE can help with some tactical issues in Gaza. They might help send troops to create the so-called Arab NATO or take another step toward normalization with Israel. Based on whatever is the “flavor of the week,” they invite Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) to the White House. It’s pathetic to think about the lack of strategic vision and the administration’s inability to carry out any comprehensive policies.
Jacobsen: And from Mohammed bin Zayed’s perspective, why accept the invitation? If it’s such a new thing for a UAE president to receive this type of invitation, why would he say, “Yes”?
Jarrar: Well, of course, he would love that. For him, this is an opportunity to boost his political power. He can claim, “I am a leader who can get an official invitation to the White House. I am a mover and shaker, recognized by the United States as a legitimate authority in the region and the world.”
Naturally, he’s going to say, “Yes.” He will do whatever is required. Some people are now saying, “Oh, President Biden might bring up human rights issues with MBZ during his visit.” But what does that even mean?
It sounds like it will be nothing more than lip service. Maybe he’ll mention it briefly, saying, “Yes, we will pay attention to human rights.” But there’s no price for MBZ to pay, and there’s a lot for him to gain by showing up in the U.S. and portraying himself as a recognized and accepted leader on the international stage. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
The United States is giving him that platform. President Biden is providing him with legitimacy and, in the process, normalizing U.S. relationships with authoritarian regimes through this visit. So, there’s a lot at stake on our side, but nothing for him to lose.
Jacobsen: With regard to Yemen and the human rights violations attributed to the UAE, what is happening now? How are major human rights bodies like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others cataloging these violations?
Jarrar: Violations by the UAE outside its borders have been extensively documented by human rights organizations and even by the U.S. State Department. The violations committed by the UAE in Yemen are horrific. They include war crimes, the creation of torture black sites and prisons where Yemenis and others are tortured, and the provocation of civil unrest. The UAE has occupied parts of Yemen, including islands, to use them for its own interests.
The involvement of the UAE in human rights abuses in Sudan is equally shocking. Report after report shows that the UAE is arming and training some of the most notorious groups in Sudan, groups responsible for outrageous human rights violations in the country. We’re talking about extrajudicial killings, widespread rape used as a weapon of war, enforced disappearances, and torture. The level of documentation about what the UAE has done is unbelievable. Of course, this isn’t surprising to me because the UAE has been involved in similar actions in other countries in the region. They have supported illegal coups in Egypt and Tunisia and engaged in air strikes in Libya. Their human rights record across the region is horrific.
Within the UAE itself, it remains one of the most oppressive regimes in the region. The government tolerates no dissent and has imprisoned all human rights activists on false charges, often keeping people in prison even after they’ve served their sentences. The list goes on and on. But as I mentioned, the Biden administration, with its short-term and unstrategic thinking, is doing calculations based on the “flavor of the week.”
This week’s flavor is the UAE’s ability to provide the United States with some tactical support regarding Gaza or political support related to normalization efforts in the region. For that reason, the Biden administration is telling us, and the rest of the world, that they are willing to throw human rights under the bus and prioritize whatever they are thinking about tactically this week, because they don’t care about human rights. That’s the message the Biden administration is sending.
Jacobsen: Raed, I know you need to go to your kid.
Jarrar: Yes, I can see him walking out. Let’s not talk about human rights violations in front of a kid.
Jacobsen: That’s right. We’re going to talk about butter chicken, chocolate, and wine.
Jarrar: Keep the boy in the illusion that we live in a good world, okay?
Jacobsen: That’s right, you’re absolutely right.
Jarrar: Thank you so much for your time. I’ll see you later.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, in your opinion, what are the benefits of married life in your sixties?
Rosner: I can’t speak about it in general terms, but I don’t know about my situation.
Well, your body requires more maintenance, checkups, and sometimes more treatments as you age, and it’s good to have someone to go through that with you. My wife has taken on the role of caring for me in many ways. At some point, she has decided she’s the better cook, and she’s right. So she does close to 100% of the cooking, and she’s great at it, especially with baking and making bread.
Jacobsen: I can vouch for that.
Rosner: She’s constantly trying to develop new, healthy dishes. Her last two jobs were as an administrative assistant at several private high schools, but she left that at the end of the last school year to focus on writing. She’s already finished a book, which works well because I’m a good editor. I reviewed her manuscript, which is about 100,000 words, line by line. I mark her work in red on Microsoft Word, and she can accept the edits—it’s how editing works. She gets rid of typos, of course. Still, for other edits, she decides whether she likes my suggestion, prefers her original version or wants to come up with something new.
Her writing productivity motivates me to be more productive, which I need. COVID shut down many of our usual activities, and we haven’t resumed them fully. For example, we used to go to every movie in theatres, but over the past four and a half years, we’ve only seen a couple. Now, we have about five streaming services, and we’re happy with the selection of films that come to us. We watch a lot of T.V. I think it’s not just mindless stuff—we try to watch well-written shows. Broadcast network stuff like ABC, NBC, and CBS has become almost unwatchable for us because it’s overly explanatory, and the plots are too simplistic. It’s what gave T.V. a bad reputation for being lazy and easy, and it mostly just frustrates us now.
So we end up watching better-written shows, which is good for our writing. Watching work by good writers helps improve our writing, too. That’s our life at this point. We’re lucky. My wife had decent jobs for a while, and I had good jobs for quite a while, so we have some financial security that many others don’t have. We’re fortunate in that regard.
At this stage, we’re still trying to be productive. I’m 64, and my wife is 60, and we’re both trying to squeeze out a few more years of productivity and support each other. Because I have excellent medical coverage—a blessing many people don’t have—we’ve been able to attend couples counselling once a week for over 30 years. Our medical insurance covers most of the cost, a huge advantage. Counselling helps us check in on any issues with a neutral third party. We don’t have major problems, but showing your partner you’re doing the work is good. I call it “relationship push-ups.”
Rosner: All in all, we’re lucky to have each other.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there have been a lot of views from Germany on your website and content.
Rick Rosner: Do I know anyone from Germany? No. The only German I know is a guy named Bernd, who I haven’t talked to in years. He was a cameraman on Jimmy Kimmel.
Jacobsen: Oh, I see.
Rosner: Yeah, so Germany is interested in Rick Rosner—or it’s still unknown why right now. But thanks, Germany!
Jacobsen: And you like them back?
Rosner: Of course, Germans are great now, though their accent still makes me a little nervous, you know, because of what happened 80 or 90 years ago.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You wanted to talk about indeterminacy?
Rick Rosner: Yes, so what started me thinking about it was Shohei Ohtani. He’s with the Dodgers and has been setting records. He’s in what they used to call the 40-40 club, which means hitting 40 home runs and stealing 40 bases in one season. Only six people, including him, have done that in baseball history. But now, he’s in the 54 club—he’s hit 54 home runs and stolen 57 bases this season. I get excited when people set records because there are numbers involved, and, you know, it’s all about the stats.
He still has two more games left in the regular season. He could hit another homer or two and get to 55. But while this was happening, there was a gambling scandal involving his assistant at the beginning of the season. Gambling scandals are always bad for professional athletes because if they’re involved, it can lead to a lifetime ban. Sports maintain their integrity by avoiding any involvement in betting on games. Luckily, Ohtani wasn’t involved in the scandal. His assistant stole $16 million from him and gambled it away.
But thankfully, Ohtani has a massive contract with the Dodgers—something like $700 million over multiple years. So, while it’s a lot of money to lose, he’ll be fine. But it got me thinking about gambling and how hard it is to win consistently. Outcomes in sports, and most things you can gamble on, are indeterminate—you can’t predict them.
Bookies do their best to set the odds, but they’re still making educated guesses. Bookies take about 10% of the action, and for pari mutuel horse racing, where you place bets at the track or an off-track betting site, they take 20%. That’s a massive built-in advantage. Casino games have anywhere from a 1% to 5% or even 8% house edge, depending on the game. Slot machines, especially the crappy ones, can have even higher house advantages. Trying to beat odds like 10% or 20% is almost impossible. That’s what keeps bookies and casinos from going broke.
Plus, it’s their job to predict the outcomes and set the betting lines so they can balance the action on both sides. They want equal action on each side, or at least close to it, so they don’t take a huge hit no matter which side wins. If the bookies take too much action on one side and something unexpected happens, they risk a significant loss. That’s why they have the 10% or 20% “vig,” or house edge, to protect them from the unpredictability of events. But even bookies, whose job is to predict outcomes, need protection against the inherent unpredictability of things.
Some people have even developed technology to make certain games, like roulette, semi-predictable. Some devices, like mini-computers, can predict where the ball will land within a certain range of slots. But there’s nothing like that for dice games, though some people, after lots of practice, claim they can control how the dice land by throwing them in a specific orientation. Still, good luck consistently pulling that off in a casino.
With games like 21 (blackjack), casinos have made card counting much harder. In the early days, before card counting was popularized in the 1960s, casinos would deal from a single deck. Now, they deal out of a shoe with multiple decks—sometimes eight or even twelve—to make it harder for players to predict which cards are left.
So, for the most part, even casino games are unpredictable for the average person. But sports games, with all their variables, are even more unpredictable. Of course, the outcome would be predictable if a professional sports team played a junior high team. However, when two professional teams—formed through the same processes of drafting and training—go head-to-head, the outcome is far more uncertain.
That unpredictability is part of what drives sports betting and gambling. I wonder what percentage of people’s urge to gamble comes from thinking they can predict outcomes. Still, it must be significant, especially in sports. People often say that gambling makes watching a game more exciting because they have money riding on it.
I wonder how much of that attitude comes from an earlier time in history—like in the 19th century and earlier—when people thought the world was entirely deterministic. Before quantum mechanics, most people and scientists believed in a clockwork universe. They thought that if you knew the exact positions and velocities of every particle, you could predict everything that would happen in the future, down to the smallest detail. The universe was seen as entirely predetermined.
Then quantum mechanics came along in the 1920s and shook that view. It weirded out scientists at the time, including Einstein, who famously said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” He spent a lot of his career trying to find hidden variables that could explain quantum indeterminacy, hoping that, if discovered, they could make the universe predictable again. But here we are, 100 years later, and quantum mechanics is much less weird to us now.
We also have information theory, which Claude Shannon pioneered with his equations. Information theory gave us new tools to understand uncertainty and randomness in ways we hadn’t before.
There were probably people doing relevant theorizing about information before, but Claude Shannon was the first to call it “information theory” in 1948. Now, we deal with information all the time. However, I’d argue that we’re still unclear about information’s exact role in the universe. We’re so connected to our devices and used to thinking in terms of information, which means we’re accustomed to dealing with incomplete information.
Jacobsen: We’ve all experienced slow internet or limited bandwidth, where we get less information than we’d like or not as quickly as we’d prefer. Information, by its nature, is recursive and often incomplete. So, any information system, by definition, will always be incomplete. Yet, it forms the most basic structure of what we call “information.”
Rosner: Right. We’re much more at home with uncertainty than in the 19th century. For example, I’m not particularly weirded out by quantum mechanics. Maybe it’s because I don’t fully understand it, but I don’t think that’s the case—I think I understand it well enough. I believe certainty was such a bedrock concept for people more than 100 years ago that it took a while for society to let go of that idea.
They lived in a world of gears and machines back then. When we think of steampunk, it evokes images of iron and steel contraptions working deterministically. But nowadays, our machines—like smartphones—don’t have gears. Most people do not know what happens inside their phones or other devices. So, we’re more comfortable with uncertainty because we interact with technology we don’t fully understand.
Jacobsen: I think you’re right. It’s a marker of the modern mind not to be unsettled by a lack of absolutes. In a way, that’s closer to how humans felt in the wild before the modern era. This desire for certainty, this “magical thinking” about having definite answers for everything, is probably a relatively recent development in human history, maybe just an accident of progress or a consequence of certain types of development.
Rosner: That’s a good point.
Jacobsen: The old world—the jungle, the savannah—was ever-changing, constantly growing and decaying. The landscape was in flux, so a process-oriented view of the environment was probably more natural for humans. You’re suggesting that with all our current information, we can still have a somewhat unified view of the world, even if we don’t fully understand everything, like how our phones work.
Jacobsen: We may not understand all our devices’ inner workings, but we see the world as a unified, comprehensible system. We operate under the assumption that everything connects in some way, even if we don’t always articulate it. There’s a sense that everything requires some degree of guesswork.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: Back in the savannah, people had much specific knowledge—like what was safe to eat, how to catch fish, and how to make shelter and clothing—but they also relied heavily on intuition, which was honed through experience. That guesswork was uncertain, but it was necessary.
Rosner: You could argue that, in some ways, the worldview of savannah-dwellers might have been more fragmented than ours. If they lived in a pre-literate, pre-language era, they could only pass on knowledge by acting it out.
Jacobsen: Their nutrition was probably worse, too, which impacted their cognition. So, we likely have much better brain development, given the quantity and quality of our food compared to people in the past. Back then, they had a more fragmented perspective of the world. They didn’t have as many facts or interconnected ideas as we do today. If you think about the amount of pseudoscience and bad beliefs we have now, can you imagine how much worse it was 20,000 years ago? They built frameworks to try and make sense of the world, and those frameworks often involved gods. It was their attempt at unifying their understanding of the universe.
Rosner: A couple of nights ago, I was ranting about how MAGAs hold so many contradictory beliefs. For example, I’d argue that Trump is the least godly president ever.
Jacobsen: By “godly,” do you mean traditional morals and ethics?
Rosner: Trump is a terrible guy with a ton of evidence showing that he doesn’t care about morals, ethics, or even the Ten Commandments. When he says he’s Christian, he’s just full of it. He famously referred to 2 Corinthians as “Two Corinthians,” which caught religious people off guard.
Jacobsen: Yeah, he’s said much nonsense. But I don’t want to cherry-pick his worst moments.
Rosner: True, but there are trends. For example, today, I argued with a pastor on Twitter. I pointed out that Trump is no King David. In the Bible, David did some horrible things, like murdering to get a woman. Still, he eventually embraced God and sought redemption. Trump has had eight years, and we’ve seen no sign of redemption.
Jacobsen: How did the pastor respond?
Rosner: People wrote back with things like, “How do you know? You’re not God,” and, “You won’t ever see Saint Peter because you’re going straight to hell.” Some were making excuses for Trump. The pastor himself jumped in, making extreme pro-life arguments, saying that our side drills holes in babies’ skulls and sucks out their brains.
Jacobsen: That’s a hard argument to counter if someone is extremely pro-life.
Rosner: Right, but even if that’s your main issue, it’s still contradictory to excuse all of Trump’s evils just because he appointed judges who overturned Roe v. Wade. I argued a few days ago, and I’ll argue again that MAGAs seem able to embrace or live with many contradictions. There’s a gap between Christian morality and Trump’s immorality, yet they find ways to justify it. They have an entire structure of excuses that lets them support Trump despite all the contradictions.
I’d say that MAGAs have more broken connections in their worldview than other people. I don’t know how many connections are super important, however. We’ve talked before about how people believed much nonsense in the Middle Ages but still managed to live functional lives. Their beliefs didn’t necessarily interfere with what they needed to do daily.
It didn’t affect their daily tasks or lead them back to the rituals that helped perpetuate their culture.
A shoemaker in the Middle Ages might have believed in all sorts of things we’d consider nonsense today, but that didn’t affect his deep understanding of shoemaking or his daily life. Similarly, many MAGAs live fairly functional lives despite holding some strange or contradictory beliefs.
Some of those viral clips of MAGAs make them look extremely dysfunctional, but those are often cherry-picked by people who want to paint them in the worst light.
Most MAGAs hold down jobs, build families, and live effectively. The evangelicals, especially, have a social and moral framework that Trump might disrupt. Still, they likely maintain conceptual consistency within their close relationships—churches, congregations, and families.
They may still adhere to consistent values within their communities. It’s hard to say for sure.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the weirdest physics fact that you find interesting?
Rick Rosner: The thing I find most consistently weird in physics is how you can make objects float in mid-air in a superconductor field or a magnetic field. That floating effect—where something just hovers—if you wanted to show someone how strange physics can be, that’s an easy one, especially if you’re talking to an unjaded 8-year-old. Show them something floating, and it would blow their mind for a moment.
What about those liquids that have a lot of iron in them and form spiky patterns? Have you seen those?
Jacobsen: No, I haven’t.
Rosner: They’re called ferrofluids. In a magnetic field, they form these spiky structures. If you start with a floating object that’s magnetic or conductive enough, you can coat it with this ferrofluid, and it creates these porcupine-like shapes in the magnetic field. It makes the floating object look even more bizarre.
But beyond that, what’s even weirder is my theory about IC (information collapse), where the impetus for the formation of universes is information pressure. It’s kind of like how the pressure that makes degenerate matter is gravitational collapse. The idea is that when matter gravitationally collapses, it generates information within its system by forming a new information space and making the degenerate matter non-degenerate. That process, in turn, drives time and the Big Bang in the early universe. Essentially, universes are formed from matter being collapsed into degeneracy in extreme gravitational fields. It’s like the Ouroboros—the snake eating its own tail.
Jacobsen: In our current definitions, one thing that’s pretty strange is how we arbitrarily define life versus non-life and conscious versus non-conscious. Schrodinger wrote What Is Life?, but we still don’t have a concrete, modern, quantifiable definition of life. There’s no formula for it.
Rosner: Yeah, it’s crazy that 100 years later, we still don’t have one.
Jacobsen: Everyone has a general idea of what constitutes life and non-life, partly because of discipline-based conceptual frameworks. But we still don’t have a mathematical form to make the concept concrete.
Rosner: And it’s only going to get foggier with AI and information processing. We’ll start seeing things that might as well be alive, but aren’t technically alive. The line between inorganic and “might as well be alive” is going to blur.
Another weird thing would be if we found out there’s 10 or 50 times more gold in the universe than there should be in a Big Bang universe. That would be a major contradiction to regular Big Bang theory.
Jacobsen: That’s a cool idea we haven’t fully explored. What should the ratio distribution of elements be in a Big Bang universe versus an IC universe?
Rosner: There shouldn’t be much gold at all, because to get gold, you need either a supernova explosion or two collapsed stars colliding.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you see the post from September 24th about Elon Musk? After seeing an AP post tweet that read, “Judge orders auction of Alex Jones’s Infowars to pay for legal damages to Sandy Hook families,” a parody account tweeted, “I have the opportunity to do the funniest thing possible. Should I?”
Rick Rosner: That’s a good one. So you’re saying it wasn’t Musk himself but a parody account?
Jacobsen: Yeah, it was a parody account with about 1.5 million followers.
Rosner: Musk tweets out jokes, but they’re usually not as clever as that one. This joke shows self-awareness, though it’s not Musk himself being self-aware; it’s whoever is running the parody account.
Jacobsen: Do you think Musk is generally self-aware?
Rosner: I think he’s fairly aware of his public image, but maybe not to the degree people expect. His jokes don’t always land, and not everyone has a high batting average regarding humour.
He’s funny sometimes, but like everyone else, myself included, some of his humour doesn’t land. That was a funny joke, however. But I’d also like to say that I’m genuinely delighted that Alex Jones’s empire, built on lies and exploiting people, is crumbling. He made the Sandy Hook families miserable by lying about the tragedy for a decade, leading to not just harassment but real threats. People went after these families, showing up at their doorsteps and vandalizing their homes—all because of Alex Jones, who made millions selling supplements and pushing conspiracy theories to angry, gullible followers.
I’m delighted to see him lose his empire, built on something toxic and harmful. It feels extreme to talk about evil in the context of politics, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Alex Jones is an evil guy.
Trump is an evil guy, too. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that. Trump’s actions led to the unnecessary deaths of more Americans than any other president in history. You could argue that Lincoln was complicit in the deaths of around 750,000 people during the Civil War. Still, that war was inevitable by the time he became president. His greatness was in preserving the Union.
But it raises the question of whether Lincoln is responsible for those deaths. The Civil War claimed about 3% of the U.S. population, which is massive. But Trump, by comparison, has around 1.4 million COVID deaths tied to his presidency, though more died under Biden simply because the pandemic outlasted Trump’s term. Trump only had one year of COVID, while Biden has dealt with it for three and a half years.
Still, Trump set up the country for these unnecessary deaths, even though he wasn’t in office for most of the pandemic. He politicized COVID. Had he not done that, fewer people would have died. It’s between Trump and Lincoln in terms of complicity in the deaths of most Americans. However, Trump’s case is even more striking when you consider that in 2018, he disbanded the U.S. pandemic response team. That team wasn’t just sitting in some office; they were working globally with other governments to prepare for pandemics, which often originate outside the U.S.
Could they have stopped COVID? Could we have been better prepared? That’s hard to say, but there’s a chance the pandemic might have played out differently. Even if COVID was inevitable, epidemiologists and immunologists I’ve spoken to estimate that about 400,000 of America’s COVID deaths were entirely preventable. These were people who refused vaccines after being misled by propaganda. Florida alone likely accounts for 60,000 of those deaths.
So yes, I’d argue that Trump is complicit in hundreds of thousands of deaths. His refusal to promote mask-wearing for over a month at the height of the pandemic is part of that. I’ve heard he avoided masks because he didn’t want to mess up his facial bronzer. Shockingly, someone would let vanity get in the way of saving lives. At the start of the pandemic, Trump and Jared Kushner reportedly withheld aid because they thought it would harm liberal states more than conservative ones. That level of negligence, vanity, and political cruelty is pretty evil.
Rick Rosner: Yesterday, I began by criticizing the generalizations people make about the intelligence of various demographics, which I think is unfounded. Then, I moved on to discuss how unintelligent some MAGA supporters seem. I wanted to go into the specifics of that.
Twitter, now called X, has become chaotic, with users posting unchecked and almost anything allowed. It’s filled with previously banned individuals now gleefully posting offensive, racist, dishonest, and inaccurate content. The algorithm is also problematic.
My traffic is down 95% because most of my friends have left, and as mentioned, the algorithm could be better. You can’t even track your traffic without paying. Twitter used to have an Analytics feature showing post engagement, but now you have to pay $8 a month for it.
While $8 isn’t much, many, including myself, dislike paying for a worse platform. Most of my posts now reach fewer than a thousand people. However, one tweet about Ivanka from a month ago still circulates, especially among MAGA supporters. It has 56,000 views. The tweet says, “Your guy had seven infrastructure weeks but didn’t get any infrastructure spending passed. But he did get to drive a truck,” with a picture of Trump making a “vroom vroom” face behind the wheel of a truck on the White House lawn.
I’ve been getting steady responses from MAGA supporters for a month. A common one is, “Well, you got your infrastructure, didn’t you?” referring to Biden’s infrastructure bill passed in November 2021. Their follow-up is often, “What’s he done with it? I don’t see any new bridges.”
Although billions have been appropriated for thousands of infrastructure projects, only a few have been completed, and some are under construction near my gym. Their argument is always, “Where’s the infrastructure?”
Between 40,000 and 60,000 projects have been initiated or funded, but these things take time. Now, shifting topics, I recently tweeted about Trump threatening a 200% tariff on John Deere if it moved jobs to Mexico. I checked, and tariffs typically get passed on to the consumer. A John Deere combine harvester costs around $900,000 to $1,000,000. If Trump imposed a 200% tariff, it would cost around $2.5 million, which is unaffordable for most farmers.
Most farmers rent these machines for harvest, and renting a combine can cost $40,000 to $50,000. Even renting is expensive. Some responses to the tweet said, “They shouldn’t have moved jobs to Mexico,” which hasn’t happened, or, “People should just buy Kubota.”
Farm machinery is amazing today, fully computerized and capable of incredible work. You might be familiar with this since you worked on a horse ranch in Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We had two tractors, and even the smaller John Deere was automatic. That’s the one I could drive.
Rosner: The advanced models require coding knowledge. They’re super complex but do amazing things. People are also upset with John Deere because they have repair locks, meaning you can only get repairs at licensed dealers. The machinery’s chips are locked, angering many farmers.
One response was, “Just build the stuff here, and there’s no need for a tariff.” Most farmers rent equipment for harvest. Another response mentioned a farmer who received $2 million from the government during COVID, and it went straight into his pocket.
In response to a thread about small farmers claiming crop losses and collecting government subsidies, someone sarcastically added, “Those rich farmers and their Ferraris. I’m tired of it.” Another person reiterated, “I know a farmer who pocketed $2 million during COVID.” This logic is flawed, though. I should also read out my actual tweet.
A John Deere combine harvester costs about $900,000. With a 200% tariff, it would be $2.5 million. How many small farmers can afford that? Small farm bankruptcies increased by 24% under Trump, and farmer suicides also rose significantly.
“Vote Trump if you hate farmers.” I won’t read the rest of that; it’s just junk. Here’s another comment: someone said that if the tariff forces people to buy non-John Deere equipment or keeps John Deere jobs in the U.S., it’s a win-win. It’s not a strong point, but at least it’s plausible.
The argument is that farmers won’t buy John Deere equipment, and that’s the point. They’ll switch brands, or John Deere will keep jobs in the U.S. That’s the take. Let me find a good response.
Here’s a comment from someone named Glockout: “Most farmers today are trust fund babies. Most people can’t afford 500 acres.” Then another comment asks, “Why does John Deere import their harvesters?” One more claims, “John Deere didn’t bend the knee.”
I haven’t found great examples, but MAGA responses are often inconsistent. For example, they claim Biden is part of sophisticated conspiracies with his family to take millions in bribes, yet also say he’s too feeble to know he’s president.
That’s not a great example because you don’t have to be completely crazy to believe both things or at least tweet about them. People often tweet contradictory things about politicians they don’t like.
But what I’ve noticed is that there are huge gaps in logic with MAGA people, even if there are some in me, too. A contradiction often doesn’t add up between the claims they make and what they believe.
I should’ve collected better examples to make this a solid topic. It makes me think of what F. Scott Fitzgerald said: “The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I get that, but I also think that the mark of a poorly developed mind is holding many contradictory positions without seeing any problem.
Cooijmans has this theory of intelligence where one of the components is—and I always forget the name. Still, you’re always able to supply it. I like associative breadth, but what does he call it?
Jacobsen: Yes, it’s called the width of the associative horizon.
Rosner: This refers to when presented with a tough mental problem or challenge. You can pull in analogies and associations from all areas of your experience to see if they offer a useful angle on the problem.
We talked about Einstein a few days ago and his struggles with general relativity. He relied on his friends’ associative horizon to solve the problem because he wasn’t as strong in mathematics. He was constantly complaining about how difficult the problem was to his friends, many of whom were math professors. One suggested he try using a 4×4 matrix system, which worked. So, he used his friendship network instead of just his mental network to overcome that hurdle.
Some of the most creative work comes from people with wide associative horizons. They can pull in analogies from all over the place. James Joyce does this so extensively that his work is nearly unreadable. He uses rebuses, riddles, and bizarre associations in Finnegans Wake. You need a guide to understand all the associations and metaphors he’s drawing on. The guide would be as thick as the book itself.
I would say that someone who’s been deranged by MAGA propaganda or has schizophrenia, or even someone dreaming, has a broken or very short associative horizon. When you’re dreaming, you can believe all sorts of absurd things from moment to moment, and none of it makes you wake up. You rarely realize, “This is absurd; it doesn’t make any sense—I must be dreaming,” and wake yourself up.
People who believe a bunch of contradictory things, whether because they have schizophrenia, are heavily propagandized, or cognitively declining, likely have a compromised ability to find meaningful associations. Their brain’s ability to link ideas together has either been shortened or was weak in the first place. Would you agree?
Jacobsen: Absolutely. Their ability to make useful connections in their mind has deteriorated.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened with your colonoscopy?
Rick Rosner: Well, for those who don’t know, a colonoscopy is a procedure where, once you hit a certain age, doctors stick a camera up your butthole to look inside your colon and remove any polyps that have developed. Polyps aren’t cancerous, but if you don’t take them out, they could turn cancerous.
Jacobsen: Right, and you have to prep for it.
Rosner: Yeah. They give you these powerful salts—sodium, magnesium, and potassium salts. You drink this awful solution, then more water, and your body wants to get rid of it, so it pulls all the liquid and poop out of your system. You end up with horrible diarrhea, but by the time you’re done, you’re supposed to be passing clear liquid. This was my fourth colonoscopy, so I know how to prep. I go in, they stick the camera up my butt while I’m lying on my side, and they give me fentanyl to put me in twilight sleep—where you’re not fully unconscious but relaxed and sedated.
Jacobsen: Did you remember it?
Rosner: Last time, I was awake enough to watch it on the screen, but this time I fell asleep. They got a third of the way through my colon. There’s the descending colon, the transverse colon, which runs across your abdomen, and the ascending colon, which connects to your large intestine. They got through the descending colon, but when they hit the transverse colon, there was still poop there. It didn’t wreck the view, but it was lying in pools and blocked some of the views underneath. They ran the camera down to my ascending colon, then pulled it out.
Jacobsen: So what went wrong?
Rosner: The doctor was pissed because they didn’t get all the way through. The nurse came in afterward and said they only got a third of the way because they ran into feces. I saw pictures—they take snapshots of every section, and yeah, there was some poop in the pictures. I assume the doctor was annoyed and frustrated, and now I have to return for another one.
Rosner: I felt like I wasted everyone’s time because there was still shit in me. I’m probably going to have to go back for another colonoscopy, this time with a two-day prep instead of one day, which means two days of shitting water out of my butt, maybe in six months or a year. This was my fourth colonoscopy—what the hell happened?
Jacobsen: What’s your theory?
Rosner: Well, two months ago, they froze a tiny tumour out of my kidney, and it was successful. They used liquid nitrogen to freeze this one-centimetre tumour, turning it into an ice ball and killing it. But the tumour was near the outside of my kidney, and when they froze that part, they also froze one of the nerves coming off my spine that runs to one of my horizontal abdominal muscles.
It turns out we have two layers of abs—the vertical ones that make up the six-pack and another layer underneath that wraps around your gut like a belt. They knocked out half of one of those belts. So now I have what they call a “pseudo-hernia,” which means there’s a little bulge where that part of the belt isn’t working. If I’m lucky, the nerve will regenerate, and the muscle will return. But right now, there’s this relaxed area.
Jacobsen: So, how does that connect to the colonoscopy?
Rosner: Well, Carole looked up why colonoscopy prep can fail, and one reason is a hernia—a real hernia, where there’s a tear between the muscles and the intestines can poke out, which can create pockets where poop hides out. So, my theory is, if a real hernia can do that, maybe my pseudo-hernia let some poop hide out too. If my transverse colon, which runs across the front of my gut, was poking into that gap in the muscle, some poop could’ve stayed hidden during the prep.
Jacobsen: That’s frustrating.
Rosner: Yeah, because the cleanout process is horrible—you end up shitting 20 times in 10 hours. And now, with this two-day prep, it will be even worse. I’m hoping the muscle comes back before I have to go through another colonoscopy. Anyway, there you go.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Next topic: Harris and Walz. How are they doing?
Rick Rosner: They’re doing well. We’re about 45, 44 days away from the election, and they haven’t made any major mistakes. It’s not October yet, but there haven’t been any October surprises so far. Trump, on the other hand, does things several times a week that would wreck any other candidate. Recently, he started his own cryptocurrency, which just shows he’s not serious about winning more votes.
Jacobsen: He’s still focused on gaining attention rather than voters.
Rosner: Exactly. A week ago, there was a focus on Laura Loomer—she’s a hate-monger and probably the craziest right-wing pundit out there. There are rumors that her dad had her locked in a mental institution twice. She’s been kicked off every social media platform for her awful comments. When she got kicked off Twitter five years ago, she handcuffed herself to the front door of Twitter HQ to protest. Just a completely unhinged person. But she’s been traveling on Trump’s plane—well, his ex-presidential plane.
Jacobsen: And despite all of that, Trump’s base doesn’t care.
Rosner: Exactly. He’s not going to win anyone new unless they’ve been completely out of the loop and have no idea what’s been happening. But Trump’s not losing any of his base either.
Rick Rosner: Just looking at the polls, which are tricky. He’s still being a piece of shit, saying crazy things, not campaigning hard, and not focusing on the right places. It’s like he doesn’t care about winning new voters. Harris has a small lead—around 3%—which puts her in a similar situation as Hillary Clinton. She’ll likely win the popular vote, but she still needs to win the electoral vote.
Jacobsen: Is Harris campaigning hard?
Rosner: As far as I can tell, yes. She’s being cautious, not making big mistakes. She’ll do interviews but limits them to avoid getting trapped or making errors. She’s also careful when it comes to talking about Gaza since there’s no right answer there—it’s a messy situation. She seems to be running a decent campaign, trying to navigate through it without alienating voters.
The betting markets have Harris with a better chance of winning than Trump. So, that’s where we are. Vance continues to give jerky responses. Mark Robinson, the GOP candidate for governor of North Carolina, has always been a controversial figure, but CNN just revealed a bunch of messages from a Black porn chat room where he calls himself a “Black Nazi” and talks about having piss-filled threesomes with his sister-in-law. He’s also indicated that some people need to be enslaved and that he would buy slaves if he could. Just overall, a gross mess, which is good for the Dems because it puts North Carolina in play. Robinson was already trailing the Democratic candidate, Josh Shapiro, by 4 to 14 points.
We haven’t seen any new poll results since this stuff came out, but it’s likely going to cost him another 5 points. That could make the presidential race in North Carolina more competitive. But the election is still far from determined. Most people give Harris about a 60% chance of winning and Trump a 40% chance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on Ukraine? Go.
Rick Rosner: Your thoughts are probably better than mine since you just got back from there. Russia still holds 40,000 square miles of Ukraine, while Ukraine controls about 400 square miles of Russia. Ukraine’s been holding its own. Russia hasn’t taken any more territory, but Ukraine hasn’t regained Crimea either. What do you think?
Jacobsen: Everything’s tenuous. It’s tenuous for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Long term, it’s especially tough for Russia because they’re losing so many men, and the women don’t want to have children. Economically, demographically—it’s not a good situation for the future.
Russia just added another 180,000 troops, giving them the second-largest army in the world, but none of those troops are properly trained.
Rosner: They’re crap. Nobody wants to be there. Many, if they’re sent to Ukraine, want to surrender, and they can if they do it without getting shot. Ukrainians aren’t interested in slaughtering innocent soldiers who don’t want to be there.
Jacobsen: That sounds about right. Most people who go to war don’t want to be there. It takes a strange kind of person to actively want war.
Rosner: Exactly.
Jacobsen: There’s a phrase from H.L. Mencken, the American journalist: ‘War is like love. It’s easy to get into, hard to get out of.’ That fits. It’s the general impression I got from being there twice. I’m happy to be alive and back, but there were real chances of getting killed. Anytime you go to a war zone, that’s always a possibility. But let’s leave that topic for now.
Rosner: Yeah. I assume the Ukrainians are still determined to save their nation?
Jacobsen: Yes, definitely. I’ll end on this—my Ukrainian friend told me that if Zelensky started to waver in his defense of Ukraine, people would think he’s broken, and they’d look to replace him. That’s the mindset—they’re committed.
Rick Rosner: He’s the LA Dodger who just did something amazing. There’s a thing called the 40-40 club—only six players have hit 40 home runs and stolen 40 bases in a season. The best anyone had done was 42-42. This year, with six games to go, Ohtani hit 53 home runs and stole 53 bases. That’s a 25% increase over the previous record, which is insane.
Jacobsen: What’s his background?
Rosner: He’s from Japan. He’s a big guy, about 6’4”. People are calling him the greatest baseball player in history because he’s also a great pitcher. This year, he’s been a designated hitter (DH) while rehabbing from surgery, so he gets on base a lot without having to field. It’s a combination of being the best player ever and having to be a DH all season. The Dodgers, meanwhile, always seem to run out of pitchers by the end of the season. They’ve had the best record in baseball over the last 12 years, but by the time they make the playoffs, their pitchers are injured. They’ve only won one World Series in those 12 years.
Jacobsen: So they might need Ohtani as a pitcher, too?
Rosner: Yeah, they might. It’s crazy. People don’t pitch and play other parts of the game much anymore—that’s a throwback to the Babe Ruth era. It’s amazing to watch. The whole thing is built on this odd combination of stats—stealing bases and hitting home runs. It makes sense that someone would break the record by such a high percentage, but it’s still incredible to witness greatness in sports.
How much time do we have left?
Jacobsen: Two and a half minutes.
Rosner: I had a high-testosterone girlfriend in college who was angry and mean, but also delightful. We were bouncers in a bar together and fought a lot because she’d get mad if she thought some woman was looking at me. One time, I was talking to a couple of strippers who weren’t wearing underwear under their dresses, and she freaked out. It wasn’t like I was hitting on them—I was just being friendly. But we fought all the time, and it was miserable. The only thing that cheered me up was checking the newspaper in the morning to see how Wayne Gretzky had done. He was setting records all the time—212 points in one season, the all-time NHL record.
Jacobsen: Gretzky really did keep setting records.
Rosner: Today, I told my wife, “Ohtani joined the 53-53 club,” and she said, “You love numbers, like with Gretzky.” She’s right—I do love when athletes break records.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen What else can we talk about?
Rick Rosner: We could talk about P. Diddy.
Jacobsen: Okay. I’ll keep my AirPods in and lie down.
Rosner: But let’s make this the last topic since you still seem exhausted.
Jacobsen: Yeah, I’m not as bad as I was, but still tired. So, P. Diddy is in jail awaiting trial.
Rosner: No bail for him. What he did was horrible, and it’s well-substantiated—something that went on for decades. It wasn’t just one thing; there was sexual and other violence, coercion, and more.
Jacobsen:That’s insane.
Rosner: Yeah, he had an empire of evil for over 20 years, facilitated by the people around him. That happens with American celebrities, but also with world celebrities and politicians.
Rosner: Right, like Uday and Qusay Hussein—they were involved in sex, murder, and torture.
Jacobsen: Exactly. So, if you take a step back and look at American scandals, there’s a pattern. Think about P. Diddy, R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, and all the Hollywood predators.
Rosner: And of course, Trump.
Jacobsen: That American lawyer who got caught with his shirt off or whatever—what’s his name?
Rosner: Anthony Weiner.
Jacobsen: Yes, him. What do you make of this from a lay perspective? If you were to take a non-expert opinion on these people, especially in a place stereotyped as a narcissistic hotspot like Hollywood and LA, do you think a lot of them probably have personality disorders that lead them to not care about others?
Rosner: Yeah, sure. Most people don’t have the kind of agency that celebrities do—the ability to act on their desires without much restriction. Celebrities have more freedom to follow up on their impulses and wants, whereas most people are more constrained by social or financial limitations.
I’m sure with someone like Weiner, and like most of these people, it’s not what they originally desired. They get carried along into creepier and creepier behavior because they can. Elvis had a similar support structure as other celebrities who got into questionable stuff, but the things Elvis did were less creepy than what Diddy, R. Kelly, Weinstein, or Trump got up to. Elvis was basically a nice guy, not insane. However, his behavior became erratic—like the time he shot a TV. Much of this can be attributed to the enablers around him who didn’t set boundaries. He also had a preference for younger girlfriends, which, at times, crossed into creepiness.
When Elvis met Priscilla, she was 14. But he mostly had relationships with adult women. He had a “thing” for what he considered “good girls”—women who wore white underwear, which he associated with purity.
Apparently, once he had sex with someone, they were no longer seen as a “good girl,” and he tended to lose interest. Though, honestly, a lot of men with access to unlimited partners experience something similar, so it might not be unique to him.
Yeah, that could be exaggerated or even a myth. But you see the same kind of enablement with people like Michael Jackson, who was a pedophile. If he hadn’t been so enabled by the people around him, would he have acted on those urges? He was married two or three times—once to Lisa Marie Presley and to the mother of his children, though that situation was strange.
If Jackson hadn’t been a celebrity, would he have been an active pedophile? Or would he have even developed those tendencies in the first place? It’s possible, but who knows how much was nature versus the enabling structure of his fame.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yeah, let’s keep it short. What do you think Thomas Edison felt when he finally got the light bulb to work?
Rick Rosner: Well, Edison ran an invention factory. He had dozens of people working for him. He was great at PR, so the image we have of him personally working all the time is probably more of a myth. There’s that story of him taking short naps and standing up in a closet because he had no time to spare—maybe it’s true. But he had tons of assistants. Developing the light bulb was likely running electricity through many filaments, trying different materials to see what worked without burning out too quickly. He probably tried hundreds, if not thousands, of materials.
Jacobsen: Yeah, was he feeling lost, like he’d never find the right material? Or was it just another project among many that his assistants worked on?
Rosner: I don’t think it was like Einstein’s lonely search with general relativity, which took him years to develop. Einstein sometimes despaired, wondering if he’d ever devised the mathematical structure to describe how gravity worked. Eventually, a mathematician friend suggested a matrix structure, and it clicked; where you can’t distinguish between being pressed into the back of an accelerating train and standing in a gravitational field, the principle is that an accelerating frame and a gravitational field are essentially the same.
But I don’t think Edison had that same kind of despair. He had a lab, a team, and a reputation for inventing. They worked on ideas until something clicked—like the phonograph. They probably had a process of brainstorming, testing, and eliminating ideas that weren’t worth developing. Half the ideas probably got dropped early, and more would be scrapped because they couldn’t find the right technology. However, the ones that worked were what made Edison famous.
Jacobsen: So it was more like business as usual in his lab, right? Refining ideas until they worked.
Rosner: It must have been exhilarating once they realized something was finally working, but it was likely a process of refining materials to last longer. The first light bulbs didn’t last very long, after all.
You’d get about 6 or 8 hours out of the early bulbs. Then they had to work with materials that could last longer—maybe a year or two, depending on how many hours you kept them on. Plus, they needed cheap materials for mass production.
So, it wasn’t just about making it work—it was about scaling up, making it affordable. But Edison was also a vicious businessman. Books have been written, and movies have been made about the “war” between Tesla and him and Westinghouse over direct current (DC) versus alternating current (AC).
Jacobsen: Ironically, Elon Musk named his company Tesla because he acts more like Edison.
Rosner: He’s a ruthless bullshitter but a good administrator of companies—he gets the right people in place. Yeah, when you compare Musk and Edison, they have many similarities. You wonder if Musk’s excesses are as much a product of the time we live in as they are of his personality. If he’d lived 100 years ago, society might not have supported him being such a big asshole. The monstrousness of industrialists took different forms back then.
Rosner: There’s a book called The Psychopath Test that talks about the emergence of psychopaths in positions of leadership—in business and politics. Robert Hare was one of the pioneers of that research.
Jacobsen: Oh yeah, Hare came out of Canada, right? His research was based on the West Coast, maybe Vancouver. Robert Hare—like a rabbit. A lot of good research in the social sciences has come out of Canada.
Rosner: Definitely. Canada is overrepresented in certain areas, including entertainment. You’ve got people like Shatner and Trebek and many of the Second City people—plenty of Canadians in the spotlight.
Funny enough, on the first show I worked on, we had a category called “Dead or Canadian.” You’d name a famous person, and the contestants had to say if they were Canadian or dead. It was a hit.Jacobsen: That’s hilarious.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick question: are you a fan of boxers or briefs?
Rick Rosner: For most of my life, I wore tighty whities because I’ve got varicose veins and need support—my balls flop around otherwise. I could never wear old-school boxers where everything is just flapping. But tighty whities got creepy, so now I wear boxer briefs. They have longer legs than tighty whities but still give support. My balls don’t sag, and that’s important, especially as you get older. There are horror stories of older men sitting on their balls and popping them.
Rosner: I’ve seen videos of men being surprised when they accidentally sit on their balls. It’s rough. It would help if you had everything in place.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is more important: kindness, empathy, or intelligence?
Rick Rosner: It depends on the context, but kindness is the most important in building a decent society. If people are consistently kind to each other, society can function well. You don’t have to understand others fully to be kind to them. Empathy extends the reach of your kindness. If you can only understand people like you, that limits who you’ll be kind to. But if you can work on empathy, it broadens your range. Intelligence is probably the least important when it comes to holding society together. Intelligence is for finding solutions when there’s no obvious solution already in place.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. So, to use something like your personal example, maybe, if someone is mildly gifted and can create problems up to, say, three and a third standard deviations above the norm. Still, you’re four or five or more standard deviations above the norm; you might overthink the problem and see patterns that weren’t meant to be there. You’ve probably walked through life seeing this happen, where even the most complicated occupations don’t require that high of an intelligence—personality might matter more. There’s a dual factor here—intelligence and personality.
Rosner: Trump and many of his supporters aren’t morons, but their personality makes them effectively moronic. They’re the “do your own research” people who lazily look into things or accept crappy arguments because they lack the curiosity or energy to poke holes in those arguments. They embrace ideas that support their prejudices without critically engaging with them. They aren’t so dumb that they couldn’t be taught that their views are based on faulty information. They don’t care enough to change their minds.
That’s true in life strategies, too. You can have average or slightly above-average intelligence and still succeed by following the standard behaviours that society lays out. One place where I went wrong was spending too much effort on failed strategies—like trying to get a girlfriend before I was boyfriend material.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting point. The marker of being “boyfriend material” is constantly shifting, however.
Rosner: True. But I remember being in 4th grade, and I was despairing because I had just learned how to jerk off, so I was still around nine and a half. I thought, “This is years away from being able to have sex with someone else!” It was way too early to be that concerned about it. But even then, I was worried about when and how I’d get a girlfriend. Other people around me didn’t seem worried, which confused me.
Jacobsen: That’s a lot of pressure at such a young age.
Rosner: It was. I went back to high school several times after graduating and saw a big difference. My class, the class of ’78, was horny. We bought into the idea that you shouldn’t leave high school with your virginity intact. But it was different when I saw the classes of ’79 and ’86. Many people didn’t seem to care as much about hooking up, which annoyed me. One guy in particular, who was cool, had a cool car and a decent personality. He wasn’t focused on hitting on girls at all. He spent his weekends hanging out in parking lots with his car buddies. When I asked him why he wasn’t worried about not having a girlfriend, he said, “You can’t worry about everything, man.” That attitude probably served him well later in life.
Jacobsen: It’s funny how sometimes simple advice like that can be exactly what we need to hear.
Rosner: If someone had told me back then, “You’ll be fine. Just do some basic things like lift weights, stay in shape, and be funny,” I probably would’ve been more chill. You’ll meet somebody. Just follow the path that most people follow—live your life, lower your standards, and meet someone perfectly acceptable. You don’t have to be brilliant to do that. It’s not a philosophy; it’s just about not worrying about stuff like that. It’s more of a passive strategy that people of all IQ levels follow.
And it has to work. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have 8 billion people on Earth. In my younger days, I’d spend at least 100 nights a year in bars—during the era when that’s where you went to hook up. I was mostly getting paid to work at bars, so I wasn’t just some sad case, spending two nights a week forlornly hanging out in a disco, hoping to hit on someone.
Jacobsen: At least you were getting paid to be there.
Rosner: Even if I didn’t meet someone, I was making money. And sometimes, I’d catch a fake ID or two, which I loved doing, or get involved in a brawl, which was usually fun.
Rick Rosner: We’ve discussed this a lot. You’re kind, empathetic, and not American, so you probably don’t subscribe to this view as much as I do. However, I see the 2024 election as one between people with reasonable intelligence—on the liberal side—and people suffering from Dunning-Kruger on the other. It doesn’t mean everyone who votes for Trump is an idiot. I know intelligent people who hold their noses and vote for him because they like the tax breaks he gives to the wealthy. They might be rich or think they will be someday.
You don’t have to be an idiot to vote for Trump, but it helps. Republicans figured out 50 years ago that it’s easier to manipulate idiots. The 2024 election feels like the culmination of 50-plus years of herding dumb people into the GOP.
And it gets worse with every election cycle. The 2024 election stands out because there are so many different flavours of idiots on the Trump side. One demographic is people with mild or early cognitive decline. At least 10 million Americans in their seventies and eighties still have agency, live independently, or are in senior living but aren’t as sharp as they used to be.
These people are particularly vulnerable to scams—charities that prey on them or scammers who call hoping for an older, feebler person to pick up. Carole and I still have a landline because we’re old and too lazy to give it up. Plus, our home alarm system requires a landline. So, we get a lot of trolling calls, fishing for victims.
We all get many hang-ups when we hear someone who doesn’t sound like an easy target for scamming. But if they hear someone who says “hello” with uncertainty, they might think they’ve found someone easier to scam.
And that’s the old strategy. Fox News is set up to appeal to the old and less critical-minded, with bright colours, pretty women, and manly, block-headed men. There are other flavours of this, too.
Crypto Bros seem susceptible, for example. And undereducated groups are often vulnerable. Trump’s most successful demographic is non-college-educated white males.
Rick Rosner: So, it’s fall, which was a time that everyone looked forward to—at least in America—when the new shows would debut on network TV. Now, with a gazillion channels, network TV is less appealing than the higher quality, more challenging shows available elsewhere.
But there are still shows on network TV premiering now, including High Potential, which is based on a French show and probably a million other shows where a high-IQ weirdo catches the attention of the police and gets hired as a consultant to help solve crimes. Carole and I watched an episode, and it feels like a show about a genius written by people who aren’t geniuses. The plot is ridiculous, and it requires all the cops to be complete idiots so that she can find the clues they missed. There’s another show, Brilliant Minds, a fictionalized version of Oliver Sacks—a great doctor and writer on medical issues, but done in a writerly, fictional way.
Zachary Quinto plays the Oliver Sacks character in Brilliant Minds, right? He solves medical mysteries by putting himself into the mindset of his patients.
And a few years ago on CBS, half their primetime lineup consisted of shows like that. You’ve got 20 hours a week of primetime programming, which means there’s room for 20 one-hour shows, or more if some are half-hour sitcoms, or fewer if reality shows are mixed in. But CBS’s lineup was filled with geniuses solving things—like NCIS had the quirky goth girl in the lab doing science stuff.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So why so many geniuses on CBS and other networks?
Rosner: Well, here’s the thing: network TV skews toward an older demographic—people who can’t afford streaming or cable or figure out how to use them. CBS has the oldest demographic of the major broadcast networks. The trends will be more pronounced for CBS because they cater to that audience. I’ve mentioned this before—older adults are often intimidated by how fast the world is changing, while their understanding of it isn’t. A lot of older people experience mild cognitive decline, which makes them feel like they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.
Jacobsen: Right, like the stereotype of the grandma who couldn’t figure out how to use the remote control or DVR back when that was still a thing.
Rosner: So, these murder shows on CBS have a clear structure: a murder happens, the charismatic team of detectives you like steps in, and they solve the mystery by the end of the hour. They make everything clear, with much exposition and explanation, so the viewer isn’t confused. There’s always at least one genius on the team, sometimes a whole team of them.
So, for older people watching the show, it rolls over them. There are a few false leads, and then the real culprit is found, and even though it took a genius to figure it out, the viewer feels like they understood it all, too.
As an older person, you’re watching this genius solve a crime, and since you understand everything, it makes you feel like you’re still sharp. It’s reassuring. You relate to the genius, so you feel like maybe you’re a genius yourself.
Jacobsen: It’s like how Richard Feynman was praised for explaining things in a way that made you feel smart while understanding him. Feynman had that balance of intellectual and emotional skill in explaining complex ideas. He used to say something like, “If you can’t explain something to a young child, you don’t truly understand it.”
Rosner: Exactly, and that’s the idea behind these shows—they make complex things seem simple enough that everyone can feel smart watching them.
Rosner: I’ve noticed this pattern in many of these network TV shows lately.
Jacobsen: If you keep seeing consistencies in the arguments or aphorisms of historically identified smart people, there might be something to them. John Cleese had something to say about this, too. He noted that some people lack sufficient intelligence or metacognitive awareness to recognize their ignorance or lack of intelligence. So, there’s a certain floor you need to be above to be aware of your shortcomings.
Rosner: Right, that’s the Dunning-Kruger effect, where you’re too dumb to understand you’re dumb, so you think you’re smart.
Jacobsen: Yes. But those effects are contextual and environmental. Historically, there were certain environments where the “floor” was much lower than in a highly technological and literate society like we have now.
Rosner: Sure, depending on the context, people of different ability levels can exhibit Dunning-Kruger. For example, in physics class in college, some people were much more confident in their understanding of the material than I was. Still, it took me a while to realize they didn’t understand it as well as they thought. And these weren’t idiots—the complexity of the subject just fooled them.
Jacobsen: You’ve always struck me as someone who makes jokes—dick jokes and poop jokes—but understands your level of bullshitting and is extremely honest. There’s a high level of intellectual honesty with you.
Rosner: Well, that got rewarded, which reinforced the behaviour. I couldn’t be cool or James Bond-like at Kimmel and other places. The only “coolness” I could achieve was by revealing my quirks, which often involve… poo. My asshole is competent now, I’d say super competent, but it used to be a disaster before I got hemorrhoid surgery. So yeah, there were some poo issues.
Jacobsen: That’s quite the segue.
Rosner: Speaking of disasters, the 2024 election feels like a Dunning-Kruger case study.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I interviewed with Steven Pinker. I had some correspondence with someone who is a dissenter from him. They cited people that Pinker has either been associated with or has referenced in his work and, therefore, concluded that Pinker is both a bad researcher and a bad person—or at least suspiciously so, something along those lines. I tried to convey to this person that the point of my interview with Pinker was about humanism and campuses. The focus was on that because I was highly time-constrained due to obligations in a war zone while conducting the interview.
It was a short interview, and that was not the primary topic. It’s an important topic, but it’s not necessarily appropriate to claim that their desired topic—calling out Pinker—was the focus of my interview with him. So, this person, who seemed to have some rather extreme views, snuck in under the radar. They studied some research, but I didn’t have time to dive into it. I work long days, and I have a lot of other projects on the go. I don’t have the time to do deep research for a passing interview just because someone claims that the person I interviewed turned out to be a bad guy. That’s their claim. But it sounds more like Pinker is doing good things in many areas, though he may have made some questionable statements here and there.
Rick Rosner: Let’s talk about one area I know quite a bit about.
Jacobsen: Yes, this is a segue into your perspective.
Rosner: Twitter, now called X, is in September 2024, and Musk has owned Twitter for a year and a half. Two years? He calls it free speech. I call it on not removing enough racists and antisemites from the platform.
In any case, I’ve been involved with IQ for 40 years now. And nothing good comes from people making claims or researching differences in national average IQs or differences in average IQs among racial groups. For one thing, there’s much bad work in that field. For another, 80% or more of the people interested in that field are racists looking to prove their claims. Third, IQ has never been the greatest measure, and it’s probably becoming obsolete as human knowledge and ability are increasingly augmented by easily accessible information and AI resources.
Now, when you Google something, I’m sure you’ve seen that most of the time, Google has AI write a short response to your query. It’s often the first thing that appears on the page, and the AI response is usually good enough to answer your question. This means that anyone with a phone, tablet, or laptop would be the smartest person in the world in 1978. Ask that person anything, and they’d have access to all the information in the world.
So, when people make claims about the average IQs of large groups, especially national or racial groups, they’re wading into dangerous territory. You’re associating with a lot of problematic ideas and people. What else?
Jacobsen: This is the point for me—my 2¢, quickly. My take is generally to give people space to express their honest opinions. That’s not to say they’re right or accurate, but it gives them a platform to express themselves. I trust the audience to make their judgments.
Rosner: That’s the argument about freedom of speech: if you bombard people with enough nonsense, can they still make their own decisions?
Jacobsen: It depends. But I don’t write for The New York Times or work for CNN as a lead correspondent. It’s a much different scale. And at the same time, I don’t think it’s worth researching racist pseudoscience—it’s a waste of time at a minimum, and racism is, of course, wrongheaded and stupid. The accusations against people by association or trying to change people’s minds with invective or personal attacks likely won’t work. It might make them more entrenched in their views.
Rosner: I agree. I don’t think you give that field oxygen. Another point, the Flynn Effect, which we’ve talked about a lot: In the half-century after World War II, the average IQ of the entire planet went up by 15 points, which is not insignificant. Flynn, who discovered this effect, says it’s just cultural literacy. When people learn the thinking that IQ tests measure, thanks to access to information from the rest of the world—particularly after World War II, when the world “lit up” informationally—it leads to these gains. Especially with the arrival of TV, I would say. The Flynn Effect occurred during the TV era, and by the time we get to the Internet and smartphone era, it has levelled off and even regressed a little. But somehow, TV, movies, books, and even regular telephones—not smartphones—gave people in the most remote parts of the world habits of mind that made them effectively smarter, as measured by IQ tests.
Jacobsen: Yes, and it’s an academic question, but also a cultural one, and offensive. That’s the danger of spreading racially oriented research into the public sphere because it taps into elements of society with a negative racial focus. At the same time, in an academic context, as far as I know—and I’m not an expert—biologists consider there to be only one human species. There have been arguments about subspecies or other categorizations, but we would have to change our minds if there were sufficient evidence for such distinctions. I think more evidence is needed.
Rosner: It never has been. You can’t just measure things and develop evidence for racial distinctions like that. For example, women are, on average, smaller than men; therefore, women have smaller brains than men. Does that mean women are less intelligent than men? No. You can get the same amount of brainpower in a skull that might be 5% smaller in diameter. The brain size doesn’t correlate directly to intelligence.
Jacobsen: Exactly, because then you’d critique the metric scientifically and look at things like encephalization—the proportion of brain size relative to body size. You’d get a more accurate assessment that’s not just looking at brain size in isolation but considering proportionality to body size.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: That’s the methodology I’m talking about. The orientation of the framing and the precision of the evidence could, in theory, come up with some distinctions, but I don’t see it happening.
Rosner: No measuring stick is reliable or precise enough to support these arguments.
Jacobsen: We’re arguing the same thing from different angles. We don’t have sufficiently advanced tools to make these distinctions, even hypothetically right now.
Rosner: Exactly, and another point, it won’t even matter in 5, 10, or 15 years because AI will determine how smart you are by how effectively you can connect with it. The people who will excel are those who are good at prompting AI and utilizing it to its fullest potential. I’ve already seen people advertising services to train others to be “AI whisperers,” which is a racket. But eventually, the smartest people on Earth will be those most intimately linked with information processing, like through Neuralink, if it works. That’s Musk’s brain chip. But at some point, someone—since he’s not the only one working on it—will develop a super advanced interface between your brain and something that pipes information into your head more effectively. Or even something less science fiction-like, such as contact lenses or glasses that provide a steady stream of information floating in front of your eyes. We already had something like that with Google Glass about 15 years ago, but it was half-baked. Eventually, it won’t be.
And so, who cares how well someone performs on an IQ test in 2038 without devices? By then, everyone will be tied into tech that augments their thinking. How smart you are will depend on how good you are at interacting with that tech. I had an idea for a game show called Search Party during the writers’ strike before this one. It was sometime in the 2000s.
I had some spare time because production had shut down. The idea was to throw tough trivia questions at kids—something challenging. For example, “What kind of car was Sonny Corleone driving when assassinated in The Godfather?” Nowadays, you type “car Sonny Corleone Godfather,” and the answer pops up. When I was developing this show, retrieving information was a bit harder. It may have even been pre-Google.
But the whole idea was that retrieving information is a skill. Fifteen years later, that’s obvious. Everyone is reasonably good at it—well, most people. Some don’t care about information and go with their gut.
Jacobsen: However, the easier and more effective ways to increase this capacity are through Head Start programs, nutrition programs, proper education, and low-stress environments for kids. These improve cognitive and emotional capacity, giving kids a more well-rounded foundation because they have the energy and nutrition to develop fully.
Rosner:Exactly. When these people enter the adult world, those with the best technology to augment themselves will be smarter than those without or who can’t use the tech as efficiently. As an aside, we have a friend who’s an elementary school teacher, and she said that after COVID, her first graders are like babies because they missed out on preschool. They were homeschooled, so the first and second-graders have the social skills of kids a couple of years younger. That’s a real issue.
Jacobsen: Right, and that proves the point. But this connects to something we discussed yesterday or the day before. The floor for functioning in society was probably lower a few centuries ago, especially regarding literacy. With all this new technology, which extends cognitive capacities in magical ways, the floor for functionality might rise. Using these devices efficiently could raise the baseline for everyone. But at the same time, it could create a bigger barrier for a larger portion of the population who can’t access or use these technologies effectively. That’s the risk.
Rosner: Researching what nutrition does for brain development or what living in a language-rich environment can do makes sense. There’s an argument that kids do better growing up in two-parent households because they hear adults talking to each other. It’s not just kids watching TV or adults yelling at them—it’s conversations. I can see studies being done around things like that. But studies about whether people in Singapore are, on average, smarter than people in Sri Lanka or China or wherever are useless. Those studies are filled with bias and racist agendas.
Jacobsen: That’s an entirely different issue, though still significant—the issue of racist agendas. But that’s separate from two things. First, welfare programs and social safety nets that support people during crucial developmental years, and second, the academic question of whether people are trying to suppress open questioning and research in an academic environment. Then there’s the other side—the public policy and social commentary domain, where both of us are concerned about people with racist agendas harming those who are typically vulnerable in this cycle.
Rosner: Let me condense my argument into one simple point: Who wrote The Bell Curve? It’s two guys. Charles… it’s two.
Jacobsen: Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein.
Rosner: Or wait, Charles Murray is alive, and Richard Herrnstein, right?
Jacobsen: Yes, that’s right. Long day, I get it.
Rosner:The Bell Curve is the most well-known book arguing for racial differences in IQ, and it’s been around for almost 30 years now. It’s a classic in that problematic genre. If you see someone bringing it up on social media, 90-plus percent of the time, that person is a creepy racist.
Jacobsen: Yes, and it’s a two-way street. Are they citing the whole text? Or just a section? On the other hand, is the person countering that argument by rejecting the entire book without having read it? Or are they focusing on a particular passage and saying, “No, the evidence does not support this”? The truth is, social media isn’t that sophisticated.
Rosner: Right. Anybody bringing that stuff up on social media is likely doing so with bad intent. Like I said, 90-plus percent of the time, they’re just using it to push a racist agenda.
Jacobsen: I’ve seen this in email correspondence when I offer interviews. Despite my constrained time, with all the projects I have going on, I sometimes do limited interviews—like a 25-minute one on a specific topic, say topic A or A and B. Then someone comes back asking, “Why didn’t you talk about topic C?” Or, “Why didn’t you call out this person for their supposed racist associations with D?” It’s unfair.
Rosner: Exactly. It feels like falling into a trap.
Jacobsen: Just like on Twitter, where some people are full-on, proud white supremacists, there are also left-wing versions of that extremism.
Rosner: There are also subtler people on Twitter. Just like white supremacists who constantly post news about undocumented immigrants or Black people doing something terrible, there’s a subtler version of that—people who use academic studies to build an argument. They put together a series of studies, and it’s only after reading dozens of their posts that you see their real agenda. Without stating it outright, they’re pushing the idea that “whitey is better than non-whitey.” But they hide that agenda behind a veneer of intellectualism. They may even have other interests beyond their belief in white superiority, but the thread of their argument takes time to catch.
Jacobsen: Even if someone is center-left, we have to be careful not to engage in racist generalizations when countering these kinds of arguments.
Rosner: I’ve seen people on the center-left who are naïve and get taken in by white man’s burden arguments. They might believe we need to help people from other countries or backgrounds because they’re intellectually disadvantaged to catch.
Jacobsen: I’m not sure I’ve personally seen that flavour of awfulness, but I can imagine it exists.
Here’s a concrete example: Some parts of the so-called “woke” movement are doing good work addressing racism, sexism, and class-based injustices. But at the same time, they promote a hierarchy of oppression in society, and in doing so, they make generalized statements about men, white people, and so on. They’re engaging in the very thing they condemn. That kind of intellectual hypocrisy is untenable in the long term, though it is gaining traction in the short term.
And that’s a danger that, in the long term, could damage center-left, if not left-wing, movements. At least in terms of the rhetorical flourish, we’ve been seeing for the last 5 or 10 years. And not taking those categories as absolutes but rather as statistical inferences. You have to take everyone individually, but yes, you can generally understand why men, or people in North America, have been privileged in various ways over others—for example, basic things like the right to vote or access to certain positions and jobs. But in making these generalizations, you can fall into the same trap of stereotyping that you’re condemning. You make generalizations about white people, men, or people with more money, which follow the same logic you’re criticizing.
Rosner: I see that happening. And here’s my prejudice: I think MAGA supporters are, on average, less intelligent than the rest of the U.S. population. So, I’m guilty of demographic generalization, too. I don’t think it’s prejudiced to say that a significant percentage of older people—those in their seventies or eighties—experience mild or early cognitive decline, making them more gullible or less sharp. I’d stand by that. It’s an actual problem because people in cognitive decline are often targeted by politicians and scam artists with overly simple arguments. I’d say Fox News, for example, is designed for what they call “low-information voters,” which is a euphemism for less informed or less critical people.
Jacobsen: Yes, we’ve touched on this territory before.
Rosner: So why do I feel justified in thinking that while I argue that people who generalize about entire nations can’t do the same? It’s a tricky line. The moral paradigm and stereotyping seem wrong to me. But if you were to say MAGA ideas are stupid, wrong, or even evil, that’s a different claim than saying most MAGA people are. Still, I’d argue that to fall for those ideas, you either have to be dumb enough to believe them, or you’re pretending. It’s either a case of genuinely believing nonsense or conveniently buying into it because it fits your worldview.
In one case, you’re intellectually lazy or uninformed; in the other, you’re being cynical. So, am I doing the same thing I criticize when people make generalizations? Possibly. However, part of the argument is whether these people are genuinely less informed or intellectually lazy.
Are they letting social factors turn off their critical judgment? I might be overthinking this.
Jacobsen: Regarding public life, I’m taking too much of an academic approach. I want to be overly self-critical about having these prejudices—not in terms of the content but the underlying logic and how I’m applying it.We have two minutes left. Should we cut it here, or do you want to keep going?
Rosner: No, that’s fine. I got up on my high horse and then jumped into the muck. You tried to pull me out of the muck, but once you’re in it, you’re in it.
Jacobsen: All right, talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s going on with newer AI platforms for the Bay Area?
Rick Rosner: AI is like the Wild West in some ways, but in other ways, it’s not. Companies like Alphabet and Microsoft are pouring billions of dollars into developing powerful AI like ChatGPT, so that’s not the Wild West—that’s heavy industry. But these smaller, fly-by-night developers are also working on different AI engines. I’d say the AI porn world is more like the Wild West.
When I first started looking into it, there was a site called “The Porn Guy” that had a list of the 24 best AI porn sites. Now that list is up to 100. I checked out a couple of them because I like seeing how fast they change and adapt to different kinks, and, well, I also like looking at naked ladies.
Jacobsen: Is AI porn something like “adaptive kink”?
Rosner: Yeah, in a way. I followed two sites for a while, but one went out of business. It was interesting to see how each site seemed to adapt to the specific kinks of its users. Each site developed its distinct style. One site had more painterly images, still close to photorealistic but with an artistic touch. The other site—which seems more durable—offers about two dozen styles, like hentai, 2D comic book style, or CG animation.
Jacobsen: What about the dominant styles?
Rosner: On the more durable site, there are some dominant themes—especially in terms of, well, dominant boobs. Most of the images feature women with huge, round breasts, the kind a 9th grader would fantasize about.
And the other site that went out of business still had people with big boobs, but the bodies were more regular, and the images were more painterly. I didn’t go through and memorize every difference in style, but after looking at about 100 pictures, you could get a sense of what was typical for that particular site. I found it interesting that just a few dozen users—these “lunatics” generating the images they liked—could teach the engine enough to give the site a distinct, characteristic style. That says how easy it is for a small group of users to influence an AI engine.
We’re told about the massive size of the data sets, the training sets—what do they call it? Large language models? Thousands of people coding, billions of snippets of text, stories, and who knows what else. But on these porn sites, it seems like just a few people are shaping the output.
If you compare that to what we’re told about AI in general, it’s almost laughable. You expect these large AI models to be built on massive, diverse data sets with a ton of oversight. But then you go to a niche site, and just a handful of obsessed users can skew the output toward their specific tastes. It makes you wonder how much influence a small group can have over a learning model. If I knew anything more about AI beyond being a half-assed consumer, I’d have more insight into how that works. But for now, all I can say is that a few lunatics can definitely “pollute” an AI learning set.
Rick Rosner: Informational cosmology has been a theme throughout our talks for ten years. Bit by bit, it’s becoming a complete theory. When we last discussed it, I want to mentioned information pressure—the idea that increasing information in a semi-closed, self-consistent system, like a universe, drives time. It embodies time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Right; the idea is that time results from increasing information.
Rosner: Exactly. A blob of degenerate matter, which has had all its information squeezed out by gravitational pressure, can create its own space as it differentiates into specific states. If you go back to the 1948 Claude Shannon definition of information, the amount of information is proportional to the specificity of the state chosen from available states. For example, rolling a pair of dice has more information than flipping a coin because there are more potential outcomes.
So, a blob of matter in a nonspecific, degenerate state can make itself specific, and in doing that, it establishes time—a timeline, a history.
We can analyze this through the physics of gravitational collapse, but you also have to consider it from the outside perspective—what’s driving it from the “armature world”?
What’s driving it? There is intentionality. In the armature world, some entities have laid the groundwork to create the material circumstances that allow for creating an information space. For instance, when a baby is born, it develops its own information space—it’s not precisely intentional in the sense of someone specifically creating it. People may want to have a baby, but through evolution, this baby can generate an information space, a brain that contains a mind that forms that information space.
Jacobsen: Right, so it’s not intentional in the traditional sense, but the underlying structure still allows this information space to emerge.
Rosner: But I’m struggling with the word “intentionality” because, in a few years, we’ll be intentionally engineering entities with their own information spaces. So you can imagine entities in an amateur world doing that as well. But for now, all conscious beings on Earth were created through babies being born. So, whether the structure is engineered, evolved, or birthed, it still needs to exist in the armature world to allow a mind and information space to develop. And in the physics of it, degenerate matter moves into a state that contains more and more information.
So, for an information space to exist, you need a containing world with a structure capable of supporting it—a kind of hardware that holds the information. For an information space to emerge within that containing world, I was trying to find a better word than “intent” or “intentional” because, for example, a mind emerging in a newborn baby isn’t intentional—it is enabled. So, unless you have a better term, “enabled” seems like a decent word for now. You need a structure to allow the information space to form. Does that seem reasonable?
Rick Rosner: So, while you were away, I do not remember my dreams very often, and I have forgotten this one now. Still, I remembered that a whole lot of ridiculous bullshit happened in this dream that did not comport with my reality at all. I was working at Kimmel in some capacity, but there was much nonsense, yet it took forever for me to realize it was nonsense.
I do not even remember if realizing it was nonsense woke me up or whether something else woke me up. Still, I thought it difficult to know you were in the middle of nonsense in a dream. You could get better at it if you practice. You see, it is tough too, but, if you accumulate experience realizing your dreams are bullshit while you are in them, I assume it becomes easier to know you are in a dream.
I do not know, but I wondered, why doesn’t your brain call out bullshit when absurd shit happens? Oh, now I am starting to remember more of it, but it does not fucking matter. I was at a gym, and the gym just made no fucking sense at all. Still, the reason that your brain does not call out bullshit is that there is no need to call out bullshit when you are awake. For one thing, in a dream, your brain is supplying all the sensation, everything you see and hear.
When you are awake, your brain is not doing that. It is processing external sensory information, and your external sensory information is never bullshit. You can temporarily reach the wrong conclusions about what your senses are telling you. Still, your senses themselves are reflecting reality as best they can. Hence, they are never bullshit, so your brain does not develop the ability to call bullshit on your sensory information, so your dreams can skate on your lack of skepticism at the end..
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It is generally correct that dream states are entirely decoupled. Interestingly, the history of the information is not decoupled, so their physics is slightly different. It is the lack of critical thought, and so maybe there is something about a more consistent personal identity throughout the day that allows bullshit to be detected in inconsistencies. Still, that is part of the conscious arena.
It detects inconsistencies.
Rosner: I do not know. We have yet to talk about dreams, we have not. Dreams are almost always not great in movies, books, or TV shows; they are not helpful or entertaining when you enter a dream sequence.
Jacobsen: Well, it is done. It has fuzzy, glowy borders around the screen, the border of the screen. That is about it.
Rosner: I skip dream sequences or hope they are over fast.
Jacobsen: They are usually too high fidelity, anyway. Dreams are low fidelity.
Rosner: I want to see stuff that happens within the character’s reality, not within the character’s bullshit. All right, you are exhausted. Do you want to try again another night?
Jacobsen: Mm-hmm, sure.
Rosner: I am glad you are back safe.
Jacobsen: Yes. They are victims of fate. Let us call it a night. All right.
Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you very much.
David Upegui (a science teacher) and David E. Fastovsky (a paleontologist) open their book with the argument that evolutionary theory is the best place to integrate racial justice into the K–12 curriculum. High school students are at the right developmental stage to discuss racial justice, and the history of evolution provides plenty of examples of specious and misappropriated uses of science for racial discrimination and oppression as well as the opportunity to highlight the nature of science and its self-correcting properties. They use the frameworks laid by critical scholars such as Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, and Derek Hodson to argue that the purpose of general education, and science education specifically, is for students to use literacy for empowerment and liberation. By gaining an understanding of what modern evolutionary theory says about humanity’s diversity and interconnectedness, students can come to see how bad actors in the past relied on ignorant or biased assumptions to create false racial categories and stereotypes.
“I truly believe Charlie Kirk is the most important man in America for the future of our nation,” wrote self-described “high risk humanitarian” Victor Marx in a December 2023 Instagram post.
In-Sight Publishing 
