Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/13

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

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

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

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube. Here we – two long-time buddies, guy friends – talk about some claims to the ‘smartest person’ and some critical analysis of these claims from a cohort when IQ was much more salient in daily academic and ordinary American life. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There’s an article by David Redvaldsen from Norway published in the peer-reviewed journal Psych. It examines the validity of the Mega and Titan tests by Ronald K Hoeflin. After a thorough review, the conclusion is that the Mega test can measure IQ at the one in a million level, while the Titan test can measure up to the one in several hundred thousand levels. On an SD-16 scale, the Titan test’s cap is 168+. You achieved the only perfect score on that test. The Mega test’s cap for one in a million is around 45 or 46. Marilyn Vos Savant, dating Ronald K Hoeflin at the time, raising concerns of conflict of interest, is the only person to score 46 on her first attempt. Chris Langan and you achieved the other two scores of 47.

Rick Rosner: On my second attempt.

Jacobsen: Right. I give more weight to first attempts. Getting feedback from a first attempt before taking a second gives you tacit information about your performance.

Rosner: Exactly. It doesn’t specify which items were incorrect but tells you how many were wrong. It also gives you the confidence to reassess and figure out the errors. For instance, I knew I had skipped one question on my first try, which I spent about a hundred hours on. I was also fairly sure about a few others I got wrong. So, for the second attempt, I wondered how much more time it would take, maybe another 40 hours, to find three more correct answers, which I did.

Jacobsen: The first attempt truly reflects an honest effort without any prior feedback, in my opinion. That qualitative aspect is crucial. Notable scores on the Mega test include Chris Langan with a 42 on his first attempt, your 44, and Marilyn’s 46.

Rosner: And John Henry Sununu, the former governor of New Hampshire.

Jacobsen: Yes, he was a significant figure under President George Bush Senior, even writing a book about him.

Rosner: There were also a couple of mathematicians who scored 45 and 44.

Jacobsen: Yes, that 44-45 range is essentially the threshold for entering the one-in-a-million category on a first attempt. These tests, considered ‘power tests’ at the time and perhaps even now, are designed to measure more than just quick thinking. They allow open reference books and as much time as needed, aiming to evaluate cognitive power, effort, motivation, and intelligence level to determine a marker of general intelligence. They’re tapping into multiple factors, including aspects of personality.

Rosner: Let’s delve into why this paper is significant, especially considering the relevance of ultra-high IQ tests.

Jacobsen: Right. To add to what I just mentioned, this indicates that one of these tests is among the most rigorously attempted, with large sample sizes and test items with precise, verifiable answers. This sets it apart from many alternative high IQ tests.

Rosner: The test was normed by Hoeflin based on about 4,000 submissions, probably ten times more than the number of people who have attempted any other ultra-high IQ test.

Jacobsen: However, one important caveat is that the individuals taking these tests are self-selected; it’s not a randomized sample. While it represents a certain segment of the population, it’s not reflective of the general population.

Rosner: Let’s discuss norming the test and determining the IQ scores corresponding to the number of correct answers.

Jacobsen: As a footnote, based on that paper, your IQ on the Mega test on your first attempt would be 167, SD 16, and 168+ on the Titan.

Rosner: Okay, let’s discuss how these ultra-high-end IQ tests are normed. The test creators ask participants to submit scores from other IQ tests or equivalent assessments, like the SAT. This process relies on self-reported scores, and although there’s no verification to ensure honesty, most people are likely truthful. Based on these scores, the test makers establish correlations. For instance, if you score 41 on this test and have a 158 on another, or a certain score on the SAT, they can estimate that a score of 41 corresponds to an IQ of, according to Hoeflin’s calculations, around 163 or something similar. That’s the general method for norming these ultra-high-end IQ tests. This paper is significant because it’s one of the first to lend credibility to these tests, which have existed since the late ’70s.

Jacobsen: There are three notable figures in this context: Christopher Harding, Kevin Langdon, and Chris Langan.

Rosner: Kevin Langdon was among the first to publish these super high-end tests around 1979-1980. They’ve existed for about 40 years but have often been dismissed by psychometric professionals as merely hobbyists’ work and not legitimate. This paper you mentioned is one of the first to give legitimacy to these efforts. However, I heard it’s a pay-to-publish journal.

Jacobsen: I’m not certain about that.

Rosner: I thought I heard you mention it. Some journals require payment for publishing and peer review.

Jacobsen: That’s a different discussion, especially considering the publishing costs. Even Harvard Library struggles to afford all journal subscriptions despite having a multi-billion dollar endowment.

Rosner: I’m not well-versed in whether this practice diminishes a journal’s legitimacy.

Jacobsen: To refocus, this was about psychiatric sciences and psychology. A serious effort to validate these alternative IQ tests must come from a psychometric professional and be published in a peer-reviewed psychometric journal. I’m not sure if that has been done yet.

Rosner: Regardless, this paper does provide a bit of legitimacy to these tests. For instance, the score I got on the Titan test, according to Hoeflin, was 190, but this article suggests it’s more like 168.

Jacobsen: Yes, 168 or higher.

Rosner: Significantly lower, right.

Jacobsen: It’s a 22-point difference. Christopher Langan’s first attempt was 163 SD-16, but he’s claimed scores between 190 and 210; others say 195. That’s an even wider gap. The discrepancy between your Titan test score and what’s claimed is smaller, about 10 points less.

Rosner: I haven’t reviewed the paper, so I can’t comment on whether its methodology is more convincing than Hoeflin’s. We can, however, discuss the implications.

Jacobsen: A side note: the most egregious exaggerations often appear in popular articles. People in alternative IQ communities tend to be somewhere in the middle, while the more serious assessments come from psychometricians. For example, popular articles might absurdly claim that some historical figure who never took a test had an IQ of one in three billion rarity.

Rosner: Langan was featured on the cover of Esquire magazine around 20 years ago, hailed as the smartest man in America, or perhaps the world. Similarly, I was featured on a Denver newspaper cover and even in a Domino’s sandwich advertisement. Domino’s launched sandwiches back then – quite delicious, especially if you like pizza-based sandwiches. The ad claimed I had a 200 IQ. They were later challenged, not due to my IQ claim, but because Subway argued that Domino’s made unfair comparisons in their ads. They claimed Domino’s only used delicious ingredients in their sandwiches, making Subway use less appealing items like lettuce and peppers. The ads didn’t last long, only about two or three weeks.

Jacobsen: There are both serious and not-so-serious efforts to measure high IQs. However, while he is a good journalist, Mike Sager’s article in Esquire was quite irresponsible as a piece of journalism.

Rosner: True, but in journalism, sensationalism often sells. No one wants to see a cover featuring Chris Langan with a headline saying he’s smart.’ It’s far more enticing to proclaim him as the smartest guy in the world, or at least in America.

Jacobsen: Let’s consider a more realistic scenario. Say Langan is in Mercer County, with a population of 3,000-4,000. He’s the most intelligent person there.

Rosner: That’s not a headline that grabs attention. People usually read articles looking for something more enlightening or extraordinary. But I get your point. Let’s delve into the implications. Assuming the article you mentioned, which I haven’t read, is accurate and the toughest IQ tests in the world can only measure up to 170.

Jacobsen: 170 plus, to be precise.

Rosner: Right, but that’s still lower than Hoeflin’s claimed reach of up to 190.

Jacobsen: Even so, 170 is pretty impressive.

Rosner: Yes, but by the standard deviation model of IQ, 170 doesn’t quite reach the one-in-a-million mark. I believe you need to hit around 172.

Jacobsen: It depends on the standard deviation used.

Rosner: Exactly. If we’re considering four standard deviations, that gets you around one in three million. You’d need about 4.75 standard deviations, which I think equates to an IQ of 176, to hit the one-in-a-million threshold.

Jacobsen: Yeah, yours would be one in a hundred thousand or something.

Rosner: Yeah. Let’s say just for the sake of this stupid discussion, stupid because it’s trivial. It’s splitting hairs.

Jacobsen: Remember that famous quote, the reason the fights are between people and societies in high IQ communities is…

Rosner: Academics. It’s taken because the stakes are so low.

Jacobsen: Yeah, there is so little at stake.

Rosner: Let’s say the toughest tests could only measure up to 170 or so, and I don’t know because I just don’t know. What is stopping tests from going higher? And it could be, ‘well, IQs don’t go higher than that,’ that’s possibility one. Possibility two is you can’t measure performances higher than that in any reasonable way except by looking at real-world achievements, which is what you just called out as a different form of IQ bullshit which is like looking at Einstein and Newton, historical figures, and saying based on what they did inventing calculus and writing Dr Faustus or whatever the fuck they did. They must have had IQs of 200. I mean, that’s an argument you can make or coming up with a theory of evolution that it takes real-world achievement to demonstrate IQs above 170.

Maybe so, but it’s certainly smarter to come up with the theory of evolution, even though the other guy contests Darwin’s invention claim. It was kind of in the wind then, and Darwin just came out with the most convincing in-depth argument. So, your IQ can’t blossom to its full above 170 potential except under special circumstances where super smartness meets an opportunity to come up with some super smart thing or where you don’t get fully flowered IQ without obsession, without some other extra mental quirks. You don’t get Einstein’s IQ without what Einstein called Sitzfleisch, the ability to sit down even though he works standing up and thinking about a problem for hundreds of hours. And you also don’t get Einstein without Einstein being born in 1879. The turn of the century is when you know science goes from being solved in a classical sense to being totally up in the air in a Quantum sense and about relativity. So Einstein was there to pounce on all that stuff.

So, various issues exist about what makes for a world-beating IQ. It may depend on external circumstances or other internal mental quirks. That’s what I got.

Jacobsen: Anyway, I think an important part of getting those scores so high does make an argument for the idea but per tests themselves. The idea is that you need other factors outside of just speed, and I think one of those is motivation, and another is the narrative around that motivation. So, how strongly are you driven to do something to take these tests and solve those problems? Also, the narrative you have for yourself to have that motivation is sort of a frame for that drive that motivation. I think those are really important factors. We can discuss that with you, but that is a big factor in your high performance.

Rosner: Taking these super high IQ tests is a minority activity. Even among the people who could potentially score high on these tests, a tiny fraction of those people take these tests. For one thing, you don’t get anything really direct for doing this stuff. It’s not a sport that’s recognized, there are no monetary rewards, the fame off of this is very iffy, the social cachet is non-existent, and the opportunity cost is huge that if you’re so smart the scores of hours you’re going to spend on this could be more productively spent in a zillion other ways. So, taking these tests takes a quirky situation and/or a quirky person. Just that means that you’ve got a self-selected weird group that automatically skews your sample and makes it questionable as to what it reflects about the supposedly normally distributed population about IQ.

Jacobsen: And so maybe there should be different statistical distributions when considering these other factors, but things like digit span, vocabulary, spatial rotation, and other things.

Rosner: We should talk about the three things you just mentioned. There are three subtests from standard, well-regarded IQ tests like the ways in the Stanford Binet, which consists of, depending on how thorough your tester wants to be, you can be given more than a dozen of these subtests. The test you just mentioned, all these subtests, a lot of them have a time component. Well, almost all of them have a time component, that’s how you test somebody’s IQ in a reasonable amount of time. You find a task where supposedly somebody smart will be able to complete more of the task in 90 seconds or something, right?

Jacobsen: I mean, the difference between these tests and a real problem solver is probably something like an extreme version of the difference between, in more normal circumstances, free weights and non-. Solving a millennium prize problem, making some big discovery, or inventing a new product of great utility to most people is a much more honest test of intelligence than an IQ test.

Rosner: You can’t use it like that because there are too many variables, and it’s just an uncontrolled kind of exposure to the world.

Jacobsen: True. I mean, it’s also, as far as I know, most of the billionaires came from rich families.

Rosner: So there’s another thing that came to mind: humble bragging regarding IQ. I know at least two people who are famous for doing that. Richard Feynman used to say that he had average intelligence; he just was inquisitive, used everything he had to think about things, and anybody could do what he did with his average intelligence. I think Francis Crick did the same thing, the DNA guy; it might have been Watson. It was one of the DNA guys. Even Einstein was modest. He didn’t go around bragging about their intelligence. They bragged about more egalitarian things: diligence and inquisitiveness, not just god-given intelligence.

Jacobsen: There’s also some sort of social lies that we tell, too. I mean, if someone is objectively more educated, they have a PhD versus an undergraduate degree. If they were to act as if they didn’t have that education, that wouldn’t be considered humble or modest; that would be considered psychosis because it would be a denial of reality. So you can be sort of honest but not brag.

Rosner: Yeah. You mentioned how most billionaires came from wealth in the first place.

Jacobsen: As far as I know, I haven’t looked.

Rosner: Yeah, but that brings up another thing, which is what’s been going on with Elon Musk, who has been recognized as an engineering genius. Then he bought Twitter, and all this information came out. I think he comes from a bunch of money and used it to buy many tech companies and retroactively have him listed among the founders, even though he wasn’t there when they were founded. He might be just some kind of fucking rich idiot, which is similar to Trump. If you look at it, Trump has time and finances; any period where we know how his money worked is when he was one of the worst businessmen in America. For instance, we know his finances for the ten years starting in 1985, when he lost 1.17 billion dollars, more than anybody else in America. He was the worst businessman in America from 1985 through 1994, and then more recently, his taxes came out for about six years in the 21st century, during which he lost another shit ton of money; if you look at what he did with the money he inherited, he would have done much better had he done no business and had just put his money into t-notes or certificates of the of deposit. So he’s a rich guy who is a fucking idiot who did nothing to increase his fortune, which buttresses your argument that a lot of billionaires had parents who were 100 millionaires and just didn’t entirely fuck up their business life.

So, what are we saying here?

Jacobsen: We are saying even if you take a shift from IQ tests and controlled psychometric psychological testing center case for the proper test into the real world, other confounding factors in the real world could make metrics that can use a naturalistic setting like a business technology invention or discovery success questionable in and of themselves. So, in either case, it becomes a problem of opaqueness up to a point.

Rosner: IQ tests were initially designed to fairly quickly tell you how smart somebody is so you can get them what they need, generally educational resources. And you can ask, “Is this helpful?” A teacher in a reasonable academic setting, let’s say a third-grade teacher with 28 students, has IQ scores for those 28 students, is going to be helpful as the teacher, by working with the students after the first couple months, be able to figure out who’s smart and who isn’t. Or do IQ tests to find hidden gems where there might be a kid who’s underperforming, but maybe that kid’s parents are getting a divorce, and that kid’s all fucked up but is smart, or the kid is fucking up because the kid is bored. I’ve never seen a study, not that I’ve looked for one, that tries to answer whether IQ tests are needed. I think they’re still kind of administered as a matter of course in schools at some point. By fifth grade, you’ve probably taken some kind of IQ test. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s certainly not the big deal that it was when I was a kid. What do you think?

Jacobsen: It seems people use it in formal settings like the army, a little less in college admissions and so on.

Rosner: So there’s the ASVAB in America, Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. It’s an IQ test to see whether you get a shot at being enlisted to go to officer candidate school. In the NFL, they used to give a test called the Wonderlic. I think they phased that out because they decided it was racist. It was a 50-question IQ test, and somebody looked at it and decided this fucks over people from poor black kids, maybe. Those people may not be considered quarterbacks because quarterbacks are supposed to be the smartest players on the field and have the highest scores on the Wonderlic. If the NFL can do without the Wonderlic, everybody else can do without IQ tests, I don’t know.

Ultra-high IQ tests serve no diagnostic purpose and, in my mind, are best considered as a sport, and I’ve pitched this fucking sport a bunch. And also, I’ve been a part of four TV Pilots that try to turn thinking into a fucking sport, and it’s very frustrating because you could make a decent show about this kind of shit. That’s what it’s for meaningless performance, like the world’s strongest man competition. You take all these ridiculous fucking events holding like 300-500 pounds picking up balls that are like 30 inches in diameter and weigh 300 pounds. Very unwieldy; who can pick up the most balls and put them on pedestals in one minute? Who can drag a train, you know, to the farthest in one minute? These things that you have to be strong are shit to do, but it’s still a ridiculous fucking thing. You can do the same thing with mental acuity of some sort, and the people have tried to do this, and no fucking network has ever picked it up because they’re idiots.

Now that I think about it, when you look at the networks that have been pitched this shit, now there’s a deal, it’s a rule I developed; I would think that other people have the same rule that the development execs at the middling TV networks A&E, Nat Geo, Bravo; if they were better at their jobs, they wouldn’t be at these fucking middling networks. They’d be at Netflix or whatever the hot fucking network at the moment is. So these dumb fucks, which is where these brain shows get pitched, maybe those shows don’t go anywhere because they are being considered by dumb fuck because some of these shows are perfectly fine and would make for shows that are at least as good as other reality competition shows and maybe better if it’s a reality competition plus a personality revealing thing like Survivor but with smart people.

Another principle that I’m well familiar with, no fucking development exec, is that smart people can be just as asshole-ish as other people and just as interesting in their assholery. There you go; that’s what super-high IQ performance measures are for. It’s a fucking sport that hasn’t been turned successfully into a sport because the people with the power to turn it into a sport are fucking dumb shits.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/12

I doubt this is comprehensive, nor is it representative of the positives of the church either; it is reportage on the reports from the news. I didn’t see a compendium, so decided write one.

This one comes in the form of the — common — use of religion as a political force. In this case, it is the Russian Orthodox Church used to prop up and support the corrupt autocratic oligarchy of modern Russia, which continues to annex, unfortunately for many including Canadian Ukrainians where I reside but also, Ukrainians born and raised in Ukraine.

As Human Rights Watch has reported on the issue, there remains consistent evidence that resistance to the Russian Orthodoxy can be an issue:

A pro-Kremlin television channel was at the scene almost instantly, cameras rolling. It later aired a story referring to the activists as “neo-pagans” and “members of a cell” who had “ammunition and psychotropic drugs” in their apartments. The head of the Church, patriarch Kirill, called the protesters “cultists” and “pagans”. (Gorbunova & Ovsyannikova, 2016)

As it is an Eastern Orthodoxy, it poses as an example, a case-in-series, of the harms of faith with this as an example.

Even with environmentalists and the Eastern Orthodox Christians here, this extends to Pokemon Go bloggers who are at the ripe age of 22 (Human Rights Watch, 2017).

This is in a country where it has been voted legal as part of ‘traditional values’ to be able to beat one’s wife (The Economist, 2017). It is near a par with the religious legalisms, for centuries, around women as property.

Of course, civil society groups worked to reduce the severity of prior laws attempting to instantiate this (Ibid.). As per usual, as with Poland and abortion with the Roman Catholic Church, women’s rights are being mocked with the Russian Orthodox Church wanting more severe punishments for women who step out of imposed religious lines, religious dogma and decree for how women should be — God forbid an independent woman emerges from their ranks. This extends in consideration of children too:

But the Russian Orthodox Church was furious. Scripture and Russian tradition, the church said, regard “the reasonable and loving use of physical punishment as an essential part of the rights given to parents by God himself”. Meanwhile, conservative groups worried that parents might face jail. They argued that it was wrong for parents to face harsher punishment for hitting their child than a neighbour would. (The Economist, 2017)

This is a major part of religion influencing tens of millions of people’s (children’s and women’s) lives (Cauterucci, 2017). And asking useless questions doesn’t help, “Is the Russian Orthodox Church serving God or Putin?” (Schmitt, 2017) I barely care about that question. I care about concrete questions affecting the lives of Russian citizens because of formal religion.

Bearing in mind, the majority of men in charge of a religion making commentary on the ways women should behave, tacitly, and what consequences are potentially or actually, explicitly, in store for them if they step out of the Russian Orthodox Church line, and the political line of the Putin Regime.

Religion may not be the source of all or even most ‘evil,’ but it is certainly facilitative in this case.

References

Cauterucci, C. (2017, February 8). Russia Decriminalized Domestic Violence With Support from the Russian Orthodox Church. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/02/08/russia_decriminalized_domestic_violence_with_support_from_the_russian_orthodox.html.

Gorbunova, Y. & Ovsyannikova, A. (2016, November 18). In Russia, Thou Shalt not Disagree with the Russian Orthodox Church. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/18/russia-thou-shalt-not-disagree-orthodox-church.

Human Rights Watch. (2017, May 11). Russia: Pokemon Go Blogger Arrested. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/11/russia-pokemon-go-blogger-convicted.

Schmitt, C. (2017, April 26). Is the Russian Orthodox Church serving God or Putin?. Retrieved from http://www.dw.com/en/is-the-russian-orthodox-church-serving-god-or-putin/a-38603157.

The Economist. (2017, January 28). Why Russia is about to decriminalise wife-beating. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21715726-it-fits-traditional-values-lawmakers-say-why-russia-about-decriminalise-wife-beating.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/12

Anya Overmann’s biographical sketch states: “My work as a writer is driven by human rights activism and progressive values. I work with people and businesses who care about ethics. To learn more about the work I do for clients, head over here. My professional and personal life are integrally woven together by this drive to help people. I was raised attending the Ethical Society of St. Louis, where I formed a deep secular belief in the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings. I’m a former President of Young Humanists International, a current Board member of the American Ethical Union, and a member of the American Humanist Association. I work with Atheists United in Los Angeles to produce The Nomadic Humanist.”

Here we talk about her election to the Board of the American Ethical Union with several others in a historic elections.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The American Ethical Union is another pillar in the secular organizational landscape. There are a bunch, including internal superminorities like the non-theist Satanist group. You’ve been a part of a cohort who made some recent history. So, congratulations – first of all! How do you feel as the Secretary and part of this historic youth election into leadership?

Anya Overmann: I feel hopeful that this shift in leadership has the potential to shift the culture of the organization to be more collaborative and responsive to the needs of our communities rather than to the agendas of those with more money and influence in our movement. 

Jacobsen: The focus on the news items has been the diversity of the election, whether by age, race, or gender. Why did this become an important point to highlight for the Ethical Culture movement?

Overmann: The American Ethical Union and the Ethical Culture movement at large have a history of prioritizing older, whiter, cisgender men. This history has also failed to create an inclusive space for younger people, BIPOC, transgender, and non-binary folks. As a result, a lot of folks that Ethical Culture values claim to support have felt excluded, not heard, and not represented in the Ethical Culture movement. It was not until the election this year that changed after 134 years. That sort of shift in representation in an organization with historically non-inclusive practice is a monumental moment to be celebrated. 

Jacobsen: Why run for Secretary rather than other roles?

Overmann: I had already been serving as Acting Secretary for some months before, and I saw my continuation in that role in an official, democratically-elected capacity as important for helping facilitate the coming transition in the organization. 

Jacobsen: What have some of the onboarding trainings and first tasks in the first few months for you?

Overmann: Because the Assembly also passed a bylaw amendment that turned our Board from elected to representative and doubled the size of our Board, we have focused on training and orienting our many new Directors. We have paused all committees but the Finance Committee and created temporary Teams to reevaluate past committee efforts and create new strategies for moving forward. We have also focused on building leadership skills, doing visioning work, and having outside consultants support us in doing that work.

Jacobsen: How is the AEU community taking this historic moment for itself?

Overmann: It has been fraught. There was some harmful commentary from within our own ranks about this historic moment, and we have been navigating a lot of tension. However, we’re hoping that we can work together through all of this to bring folks into a shared space and common ground.

Jacobsen: How have the current Board and the new board members – along with you – adapted to the new Board shuffle? In my experience, and I assume yours too, there has always a bit of an adjustment period getting used to everyone’s way of working, communicating, and orienting to the contingencies of the prior Board and its work. 

Overmann: The switch from an elected Board to a representative Board has been the most challenging change in our new leadership. Our Board went from 11 Directors to 22 almost overnight, and the 11-director Board was already struggling to get anything done due to a severe breakdown in relationships. In my opinion, doubling the number of cooks in the already dysfunctional kitchen was a very poor decision. However, it was the decision the Assembly chose and our duty to carry it out. So we have done that, but it has made bringing everyone onto the same page a monumental task that we are tackling little by little.

Jacobsen: What are your hopes for this new moment for AEU?

Overmann: I am hoping that we can build trust in our leadership. It’s clear that we are working in a very anxious system and that people are worried about the future of this movement. The concern that we are looking at the end of the American Ethical Union is legitimate. My hope is that members support us and the collaborative work we are attempting to do to save this organization, rather than create any additional obstructions or resistance to this very difficult work. But I recognize that it’s a two-way street and that we have to be able to cultivate trust and safety to make this work. 

Jacobsen: What are the targeted objectives of AEU’s Board in this set of terms?

Overmann: We want to (1) rebuild decision-making structures, (2) re-launch committees, and (3) build a new culture that resists past dysfunction and promotes future flourishing. 

Jacobsen: How can people get involved with AEU or your work, reading or learning about activities?

Overmann: Go to aeu.org to learn more about us, or email me at aovermann@aeu.org if you have any questions.

Jacobsen: Anya, thank you for the opportunity and your time, today.

Overmann: Thanks, Scott, always a pleasure!

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/11

I doubt this is comprehensive, nor is it representative of the positives of the church either; it is reportage on the reports from the news. I didn’t see a compendium, so decided to write one.

Another purpose for this catalog is because of the lack of news play about the Eastern Orthodox Church compared to the Roman Catholic Church, and its trial of Galileo, and torture, hunting of witches, and the Inquisition, and the child sexual abuse scandal, even Bruno, of course.

But what about the second largest Christian sect in the world boasting over 300 million members? In many of these cases, I believe the secular and ordinary religious stand in solidarity, moral alignment. So let’s begin:

According to the Greek Reporter, a priest, Adam Metropoulos, was convicted of sexual abuse on four counts. Forgive the direct language and emotional tone in the latter portions of this sentence, but the sexual abuse equates to rape, Metropoulos raped.

His sentencing, circa, April 27, totals 12 years in prison. Ann Murray, the Superior Court Justice, stated that she also sentenced him to “3 years of probation after he gets out of prison” and would have to “register with the Main Sex Offender Registry for the rest of his life.”

Murray noted the impacts on the victims was “great” or significant. At the trial, a former altar boy from St. George Greek Orthodox Church testified. The former altar boy was 23-years-old, and reported being sexually assaulted by Murray.

This was during sleep overs at the Metropoulos’s home. The Greek Report noted that “police found pornographic images in the offender’s computer,” which portrayed “a family member that he would secretly film in the nude, as well as other photographs of different people, some of them children.”

On the day of the arrest, the Greek orthodox diocese in Maine made a suspension of Metropoulos. In Metropoulos’s defense, he stated that he never had intercourse with the teenager, but that he touched the alter boy, at the time, in an inappropriate way while he was asleep.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/11

According to the United Nations, through its Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), it has been noted that the vast majority of victims of human trafficking are women and girls at 72% of the total number of ongoing victims. However, one more disenchanting trend has been the increase in the number of victims being children.

Between 2004 and 2016, the number of child victims, so mostly girls, has more than doubled.

Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, stated, “Most detected victims are trafficked for sexual exploitation; victims are also trafficked for forced labour, recruitment as child soldiers and other forms of exploitation and abuse.”

The problems of the world continue to be interlinked. For example, when encountering problems of anthropogenic climate change of human induced global warming, the destruction of the infrastructure and capacities of nation-states to provide for the safety and security of its citizens becomes an issue for refugees, displaced peoples, and migrants.

In other words, and by the way the majority of refugees are women and children, the problems identified by one area of the international community impact another part of the problems facing the world’s citizens, especially those most vulnerable who have been displaced due to climactic megastorms, flooding, and other natural disasters destroying local infrastructure. Nature forces a move from their hometown, even their homeland.

Vulnerable populations can then become subject to being taken advantage of by the traffickers. These are desperate people. Similarly, we can see the same in a Canadian context.

If the individuals in the populations become vulnerable in some manner, then they can be taken into human trafficking networks and trapped. One major mechanism is financial or economic entrapment. In order to continue to live, women and girls, mostly, have to sell themselves as objects of pleasure to the buyers of what the human traffickers are selling.

Everyday news items of the United Nations have immediate applicability here.

The UN concluded, “Globally, countries are identifying and reporting more victims and convicting more traffickers, according to the latest UN Global Report on Trafficking in Persons. Despite some progress, however, ‘victims continue to face significant obstacles in accessing assistance, protection, redress and justice.’”

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/10

Dr. Adam Rutherford’s biography states: “I write and present documentaries for the BBC radio and television (highlights below), on evolution, genetics, anatomy, art and spider-goats. On radio, I present Radio 4’s flagship culture programme Start The Week, and was the host of Inside Science for 8 years. With my friend Hannah Fry, The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry, now on its 20th series. My most recent radio doc was on Long Covid, which aired in October. I’ve made programmes about AI and robotics; the inheritance of intelligence; on MMR and autism, the 20-year legacy of the MMR scandal; epigenetics; astronomy and art, scientific fraud, and the evolution of sex, and I’ve been a guest on 9 episodes of the Infinite Monkey Cage, and James Cameron’s Story of Science Fiction. And a berzilion other things.”

Here we talk about evolutionary genetics, racism, and humanism.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, thank you for your service in humanist leadership in one of the larger secular humanist organizations in the world, Humanists UK (formerly the British Humanist Association), you have an intriguing expertise important to numerous poignant domains of societal discourse at the moment, i.e., genetics particularly and science generally. I mean this: We’re in the era of empowered ignorance and, even worse, the not-wanting-to-know crowds. So, this will be interesting to formulate some questions. Let’s start on a narrative note, not footnote though, what is the personal story into science education, genetics specialization, and humanist philosophy, for you?

Dr. Adam Rutherford: Well, the first thing is that I’m not sure I agree with the premise. We are certainly in an era where the voices of those who reject science are emboldened and amplified, but much of the general public trust in science is at an all time high, and was enhanced during the covid era (I was author on a study which tested this, and the results were largely positive). 

So to answer the actual question, Humanism is a worldview that is tied very strongly to science, because it rejects supernatural explanations for the universe. Science, more than anything else, is a way of knowing, which is not perfect, nor the only way of knowing, but it rejects dogma (in principle, though perhaps not always in practice), and is self correcting (though only when we bother to self-correct). So we derive confidence in a scientific worldview by doubt and constant challenge, and that appeals to my sensibilities. Evolutionary genetics specifically has helped cement that bond between my scientific thinking and Humanism because it reveals two very clear anti-dogmatic stances about life: one) that all life is begotten not created, and two) that race is not biologically enshrined. 

Jacobsen: Why the pursuit of evolutionary genetics? 

Rutherford: ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’: Theodosius Dobzhansky. Evolution is what got us here, so one might argue that it is the most powerful force in the universe. That’s the pompous answer. The fun one is that it’s mostly about sex and families. 

Jacobsen: How did specified research in gene CHX10 in eye development and the work on stalk-eyed flies become a) research interests and b) a manner in which to see the subtlety of nature in evolution? Nature has had two great, simple tools: a long time and a big playground. 

Rutherford: A random walk. There was never a grand plan, and I am catholic in my interests. I ended up on eyes, because the stalkies have the eyes on the ends of long stalks (hence Stalk Eyed Flies), and this traits is sexually selected, meaning that the females prefer bigger ones, which drives evolution towards them becoming exaggerated. We were trying to find the mechanism for that drive, but never could get it to work. But the genes involved also equivalents in humans, and they are active in eyes. It was the genes I was following, not the eyes. So yes, the cleverness of evolution as a tinkerer is right there in that switch, wildly different eyes, same genes, doing slightly different things. 

Jacobsen: How did you become an audio-visual editor for the major journal of science, Nature, for a solid decade? That’s just a cool add-on to your resume. 

Rutherford: By the end of my PhD I had worked out that I was better at talking about science than doing it. So I took a job as an editor at Nature, and had various roles. This was the early 2000s and we were somewhat forward looking in thinking about the potential of the web for science communication. One of the ways we started experimenting was in audio and video. 

Jacobsen: How do you frame scientific interviews for a popular audience, such as those with David Attenborough or Paul Bettany? (How did you not become distracted by Attenborough’s awesome presence, given by his voice?)

Rutherford: Well, they are just people, and I’m interested in people. I think you have to be slightly nosey to be a good interviewer. Bettany was fun to talk to; he’d just been cast in a small voice-only role in a film called Iron Man. He had never heard of the character. Being a comic nerd, I had. 

Jacobsen: You perform an important public service, which, as far as I know, most societies do not have the enjoyment of existing. That is to say, your work on Inside Science with mathematician Prof. Hannah Fry gives a platform for public, more accessible conversation about science. (So, thank you both.) How did this opportunity arise for you? What is the real strength of working together with Hannah on Curious Cases?

Rutherford: We met, liked each other, and then worked out how to combine our love of science with our love of each other’s company. The key to that programme is that we make each other laugh. 

Jacobsen: To the original question preamble, and to the narrative response about Humanism, you are the President of Humanists UK. There is a rise in strongly conservative religious – selective – literalists with aims for social influence, political power, and institutional dominance in several geographic regions of the world. How can Humanism provide a more convincing narrative to individuals who may be seduced by the rhetoric of these (re-)emergent fundamentalist trends?

Rutherford: Humanism shares many values with other religions, such as being driven by compassion and kindness, but our bond with science is born out of a rejection of all aspects of supernature, couped with a curiosity to understand the world, and question it. In its most pernicious forms, religion asks you not to question, but to believe, and so can run counter to a scientific worldview. We are creatures burdened with biases that distort our understanding of nature. We invented science to free us from those shackles, so we can see the world how it is, rather than how we perceive it to be. That is true freedom. 

Jacobsen: Continuing directly from the last question, sometimes, as with the American example for certain, these religious groups can be racist movements: racialist in conceptualization, racist in undertone, and, at worst, outright racist in speech and acts. What is the shorthand argument – the humanist argument/scientific argument – to shutdown or provide a more convincing empirical argument against mostly benign racialism (just using the categories, wrongly) and, obviously, not-benign open racism (prejudice and bigotry)? 

Rutherford: Science has – and probably will always be – often co-opted into pre-existing political ideologies. Biology was a subject born in service of racialised thinking and European expansion. That is a pernicious history that underwrites our field. But the trajectory of that history is celebratory, as it is also the field – particularly human genetics – that has dismantled the biological concept of race. Knowing that history and the science that emerges out of studying how people are similar and how they differ is a powerful weapon against racial prejudice. I have no doubt that bigotry persists, but science is no ally to racists. 

Jacobsen: How can people get in contact with, volunteer for, or become members of, Humanists UK?

Rutherford: We are a deeply secretive organization and no amount of Googling or going directly to humanists.uk will reveal exactly how to join, and the wonderful community of people that make up Humanists worldwide. 

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Adam.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/09

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

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

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

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

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I think that whatever nature can produce then it’s possible for us to produce it too. It’s just a matter of figuring out the appropriate sort of processes and structure to make that happen potentially in different substrates. Regardless, it’s the same natural universe; if nature can do it we can do it consciously. It’s just a little bit harder because they’re trying to do it on much faster time scales. So, the idea is that there is a probability or a possibility of a future era of pervasive novelty where digital architecture plus artificial intelligence software can master creative endeavors. I would posit that there would be open-ended algorithms to permit sort of a widening horizon of creativity in those ways and some constrained and within that, more or less those kinds of algorithms would begin to slowly and then very rapidly master areas of creativity under current human domination. 

And I think that would then usher in the sort of novelty across the board where it may become a natural thing for upgraded people to not simply have to play a song for instance that they really like over and over again but they could have variations on that song every single time cater to their neurology. So it’s sort of new music variations on the other stuff they like but I think in all ways it could be like this where there’s just continual production of novelty to sort of keep up the interest of either hybrid people or artificially constructed beings who sort of keep their interest up what would require a sort of a continual refreshing input of information and entertainment. I think we’re kind of seeing some of that when there’s a real challenge in Covid for people to keep things interesting. What do you think?

Rick Rosner: On one level you’re positing the singularity that AI and machine learning will be able to do anything and you’re suggesting that in order to be entertained, future humans and future Trans human, whatever we turn into, will require a constant novelty. I would take it one step further and would say that even constant novelty wouldn’t necessarily be novel. If we’re so smart in the future we’ll see through the surface novelty and see the patterns underneath and may fail to be entertained. 

I’ve been reading about this a little bit and also looking at the art that’s been generated by the new high level machine learning artists who take prompts from humans and then make art like Queen Elizabeth in the style of Frank Frazetta. Within a minute you’d get an AI artist generating Queen Elizabeth in one of those swords and sorcery holding up a sword kind of a 1970s Schwarzenegger poses that Frank Frazetta did. I’m sure somebody’s done like a bunch of fake presenters already and stuff looks completely convincing and this is causing a certain amount of controversy, consternation, distress, and excitement and you see how good the AI artists are. And also the humans take a look at the first effort of the AI and then they tweak it. I don’t know how you tweak the product where you tweak it with words or whether it gives you like slider bars but you can keep doing further iterations of the art until you arrive at something that is the most satisfying version of what you asked for.

Some people think this is the end of human art and artists. Some people think it’s just the beginning to a whole new world of human machine partnership to generate new wonders. You’re suggesting that it’s possibly the source of an endless fountain of novelty. I would suggest looking back to see what tech did historically.

Jacobsen: Printing press, what happened?

Rosner: Well for one thing, religious authorities or people who thought it was their job to protect Christians thought it was a threat to Christianity that if you could generate novels; books of made up stuff, that this would corrupt people. For a century or more it was said, I don’t know maybe in America at least, that the average household to have only two books the Bible and Pilgrims Progress. Anything beyond that was evil and salacious, that just reading about made-up people and the stuff they did would be corrupting. So I’m sure that would include plays like Shakespeare and all that stuff. And then we grew to be at home with novels and find them entertaining and to a great extent world expanding to be positive. We have morons now in America at least attacking novels if they happen to be about gay people. Some assholes School District just this past week banned 41 books including the Bible because kids might be exposed to stuff. I’m hoping this wave of assholes with power is just a blip but who knows.

In general, people have a positive outlook about novels but novels became threatened by other media; radio and movies and TV and you have one medium supplanting the others and changing them. The publishing is in trouble because there are so many other ways to be entertained but people are still generating plenty of really good novels.

Jacobsen: Even if we take a total human lifespan now, say double in a bit extra life compared to 250-300 years ago in the most developed nations, that’s not enough time to consume even the new stuff that’s being generated here on the earth probably. 

Rosner: Yeah, thousands of new books appearing every day now most of them purely shit, most of them self-published but still enough good books but no, you couldn’t absorb them all. We’ve got eight billion people in the world and people for the most part have more ability to produce and create than ever before.

Jacobsen: So this seems to me like the human cuss of that. The creativity is there.

Rosner: Yeah, we’re going to get to that. I still read the newspaper, the LA Times and they still have a comic strip page which I can no longer really read. I’ll look at one strip which is Dilbert, which is occasionally interesting even though the creator, Scott Adams is a Trumpy asshole who’s pretty insane. He’s like the My Pillow guy of comic strips but he’s still kind of okay but most of the comic strips are just purely shit or just not good. Maybe they’re not all pure shit but most of them just aren’t great. Comic strips used to be great or at least pretty good when everybody read the newspapers in the 1930s, 1920s but the divergence between graphic novels which are comic books and comic strips and newspapers is Titanic. Now comic books get made into 250 million dollar movies and even if the original plots in the comic books because a lot of movies are made from comics that were written 50 years ago.

You have the best, the most talented people in entertainment working to make these dumb fucking comic books from 50 to 60 years ago. They really weren’t that dumb. Stan Lee products were I don’t know, they were slapdash but they weren’t as shitty as comic strips are today. And now you have excellent writers, directors, actors, artists, and wardrobe people just doing 10,000 people, most of who are really good at their jobs making great stuff. You’ve got a huge divergence, comic strips comic books used to have the same level of quality, now not.  Getting ready for this, I was pricing lab created diamonds. A flawless one carat mine diamond that somebody dug out of the earth in South Africa and then sold on the market via De Beers, a D color which is the finest most colorless diamond and flawless, a one carat stone might sell for 20 grand. 

So I priced three carat lab grown diamonds, near flawless F color, which is something that anybody would be proud to have to receive as an engagement ring, you get a three carat one of these for 4000 bucks. If it were a natural diamond, with that same stone would probably be over forty thousand dollars.  The lab grown diamond is just as sparkly, just as beautiful. They do things with a lab-grown diamond or there are indications where a well-trained Jeweler and stick it under a microscope and tell you whether it’s natural or man-made but really when it’s on your finger who’s going to know except that you’re wearing a three carat diamond engagement ring and your fiancé teaches second grade. Obviously he wouldn’t be able to. But the diamond is just as great and has all the same properties of the mined diamond. 

10 years ago, 12 years ago you might be able to get a lab-grown half carat diamond at most. Now I think you can grow diamonds without limit. I think the website I looked at was selling diamonds up to either six carats or 12 carats which is gigantic whatever quality you want to pay for, for roughly 10 percent of the price of… Now, De Beers is kind of a corrupt organization. Diamonds exist in enough profusion around the world. They’re the most common precious gem compared to emeralds, ruby, sapphires and De Beers is managed to control the market and artificially prop up the price for a century and artificially create demand.

There weren’t for the most part diamond engagement rings until 110, 120 years ago when De Beers created the idea that it wasn’t really an engagement ring unless it had a big fat diamond in the middle. In order to sell diamonds they created the idea of the tennis bracelet in the 70s and the eternity ring in the 80s or 90s. They’re always you know creating demand and now they’re working I’m sure to control the man-made diamond market so it doesn’t entirely destroy the diamond market. But here’s a deal where technology has made diamonds, has wiped out the value of diamonds by 90% as long as you don’t care that a jeweler might be able to tell and you shouldn’t. 

And so it’s technology destroying a market unless De Beers manages to somehow hold on which they probably will because they’re a big powerful company. They were banned from doing business as De Beers in America for 20 years or more because they were just so big and corrupt and powerful that the US didn’t want their bullshit over here. Also, lab-created diamonds are not blood diamonds. You get a diamond for 90% off without worrying that people died because of that fucking diamond. Well you’re going to have disruption as AI creates shit mostly in early days in partnership with humans that is just at least is kick ass and likely more kick ass than what humans alone can create. Where am I going with this? As I’ve been talking about, this is a familiar situation where new technology leads a radio. Fucking radio is a piece of shit. Radio sucks. Radio used to be in the 1930s one of our most entertaining media, the most entertaining forms of expression because it was pre-TV and people would cross back and forth between radio and movies, the two most entertaining media at the time. 

And then TV came along, fucked up movies but not as bad as it fucked up radio and now nearly a century later radio is just pure shit. So this people working with AI and then people with built-in AI working with AI and then AI that is sufficiently sophisticated in the 2050s generating its own shit in syndicates which are still run by 2050 by people who knows what’s happening in 2080. But the new forms of entertainment, like I’m writing this book that’s set 15 years from now and people have choosies which are like movies/video games except they’re totally immersive like you can watch the movie but if you like the world of the movie or if you like the world of a video game it’s built out enough that you can spend a fuck load more time in it choosing your own adventures or just choosing to hang out.

Jacobsen: So this is more in line with what I’m getting in terms of the future novelty. That’s a more concrete example from your text.

Rosner: So, I was just reading about the Metaverse and I watched part of a documentary on the Metaverse and Zuckerberg’s Metaverse: a) it looks like shit, b) in Zuckerberg’s Metaverse people only exist from the waist up. I just read an essay that said that that’s mostly because Zuckerberg doesn’t want people fucking in the Metaverse 

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: It’s also because people can wear VR kind of rigs on their upper body in their arms and it’s just more convenient to just only worry about your upper body but it’s also bullshit because I guess people have been fucking in second life forever. I think the essay included a term called TTD which is time to dig, which is how long before somebody figures out how to hack the technology and give people genitals. 

Jacobsen: [Laughing] they’re assuming men are the most driven for this activity.

Rosner: Yeah, this is a commonly held belief, a belief that is a cliché, it’s so commonly held that any technology you can come up with will be driven forward by porn, by people using it to jack off and will be used for porn and driven to new heights by porn. The technology and sexual gratification are completely intertwined. But with a Metaverse that doesn’t suck you’ll be able to immerse yourself in it, to live in it. There were these books in the 70s and 80s called Choose Your Own Adventure and so I took the name choosies from that. They were annoying little books for kids where if you decide that he should go left and turn to page 68, if you decide that our hero should go right and into the cave go to page 88. They just branched out and there are probably six different endings because the branches tended to merge just because otherwise it became too unmanageable and a little Scholastic Book for 295. 

But the choosies, they will be able to keep branching and be able to surround you. If you want to return to high school and live in a world where you made different choices and weren’t such a fucking loser, you’ll be able to go back to high school for fucking forever. It’ll kind of be Matrix style, it’ll suck at first where it’ll get really good really fast and I don’t know I read yet another article that showed what people might look like according to some AI predictor that said the people will turn into these weak newt like things because they’re in Matrix style tanks all the time, they just spend all their time in these gratifying worlds with heads that are like misshapen to better fit VR rigs. As with science fiction, none of these predictions are individually 100% correct but in general you get a sense of the landscape of what’s coming which is increasingly immersive, increasingly powerful, increasingly not being able to be equaled by humans.

Jacobsen: Can you repeat that part, please, the term? On augmented humans.

Rosner: All right well obviously unaugmented humans will increasingly be unable to match the creativity and power and entertainment value of shit done by humans plus AI. It’ll lead to worlds of vast novelty, it’ll lead to vast appetites of novelty and extreme jadedness and I just read something else where somebody called it a Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion was where conditions became ripe for evolution to go crazy. I don’t know what the conditions were exactly but there was a 50 million year period where life just became like super fast and evolutionary terms incredibly diverse. And so whoever said there’s a coming Cambrian explosion was talking about the next 50, 60 years where there’s going to be an explosion in consciousness; things that are conscious, things that do information processing, things that can generate just a whole jungle of new beings, powerful new beings, wildly creative new beings. Shit is just going to get weird.

We’ve talked about this that there will be strata, there will be levels of human existence depending on what these group… people will group themselves by how much rapid change they can handle. It’s the same thing as saying there will be different levels of people being technologically Amish, the people who are the most fundamentalists, the most afraid of change will live lives that look like ours now or even with some backlash against… they’ll live lives of being what we consider normal life spans without too much super high powered medicine and technological rejigger-ing of our bodies, people will live 80 years, 90 years, 100 years, 120 years in their natural forms maybe entire cities but in enclaves where a human life kind of mostly looks like it does now. And then from there you’ll have like constantly bubbling and changing levels of human plus AI existence, as humans plus AI and AI plus AI become braver and braver and more and more powerful at embracing these wild new existences punctuated with devastating conflicts were entities use technology to fuck with each other and fight for dominance. Who knows what dominance will look like? Dominance might involve probably will involve a certain times computing power.

We’re going to fight over water in the next 10 years and we’re going to fight over other resources that are being fucked up by there being a billion climate change refugees sloshing around the world. We might fuck up the oceans enough that we’ll be fighting over protein but maybe not because we’ll probably learn how to generate protein. But anyway Wars over scarce resources which might eventually include computation. 

And shit like Bitcoin, which not that I think Bitcoin will survive in its current form but that other things that require vast amounts of computation and then people will figure out how to make you know simple computation super cheap. Will people fight over Quantum computation or other forms? I don’t know but anyways it’s a jungle of novelty is coming.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/09

Andrew Copson has been Chief Executive of Humanists UK since 2009 and is currently serving his final term as President of Humanists International, which office he has held since 2015. He is the author of Secularism: a very short introduction (Oxford University Press) and, with Alice Roberts, of the Sunday Times Bestseller The Little Book of Humanism. This is a series on global Humanism with the first session as “The State of Global Humanism: Overview.” 

Here we talk about Humanism in the global South. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I wanted to talk a little bit today about the global South. Humanists International, we had an expansion and a diversification in organizations, the Board, the membership, over a decent number of years. What areas have really shown a lot of growth and diversification within Humanists International?

Andrew Copson: It’s hard to pick but perhaps the most thriving have been our organisations in Asia. The work of the humanists in Nepal, for example, always amazes anyone who has anything to do with it. They are distinctive for drawing on the humanist tradition and finding their own humanist background and culture, which is rich in Nepal as in India. I think that’s where Humanism in the global South takes off: when it makes it clear that the humanist approach to life is not just one that grew up in Western Europe but is one with deep roots in every part of the world. To answer your question in another way. Where has there been, as it were, the most dynamic growth? I think, probably, in Africa. So many people are hooking up with the ambition to organize on humanist terms there. And of course in Latin America. My answer is turning out to be everywhere. Isn’t it? [Laughing]

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Copson: We’ve seen dynamic startups there as well. Similarly, the big problems facing humanist organizations in the global South are present almost everywhere. There are economic problems. It is often difficult for people who work hard for their economic survival and their families’. It is much harder that for people in the global North to have time to dedicate to organizing civil society. There’s also almost a complete lack of government money for that organizing. You think about Norway, with tens of millions of public money going to them yearly. That is not going to happen in any global South country. But, of course, what they all have in common in my experience is that they are run by people who are younger on average than people in the global North. That’s a benefit for them too. It leads to dynamism, energy, and enthusiasm (not to criticize older people!). In my opinion and observation, it has led to greater dynamism and activism in the global South. So, there are strengths and challenges in all of the regions that we’re talking about, which are, by and large, comparable.

Jacobsen: What about the difficulties individuals will face in these countries?

Copson: Obviously, the global South countries are less democratic in general than countries of the global North. That’s clear by any measure. As a result, those who argue for the sorts of causes humanists argue for, progressive causes like human rights for women, more choice for women, human rights for children, away with superstitions and taboos and conformity based on unreasonable, irrational beliefs; rights for LGBT people, greater democracy, greater freedom of expression  – these are all things it is harder, on average, to argue for in the global South than in the global North. So, humanists are facing more threats in this way.

Jacobsen: Do you think it’s incumbent on global North humanist organizations to financially support global South organizations?

Copson: I think so. First, let me frame it slightly differently; I think humanist organizations in different parts of the world all have things the exchange of which with humanist organizations in different parts of the world would be valuable. Many organizations in the global South have insights into their own successful activities that would assist struggling organizations in the global North. Money transfers are not the only transfers in the humanist network. There are transfers of knowledge and experience that go from South to North as much as they go North to South. Of course, the money in general is in the North and more of that should go south. I trust that humanists will not see themselves bound completely or even primarily by ties of geography, nation, and region, because we see the human family as one. Help humanists wherever you find them. You get more bang for your buck by supporting humanists in the global South than you do in the global North.

Jacobsen: Nation-states and governments can be not friendly to humanists in the global South in terms of jailings, violence, death threats, blasphemy laws, and so on. These are the more serious areas of concern for many humanists at risk. For those global South countries and organizations and individuals who are very active, what risks at an individual level do states that are theocratic and authoritarian pose to individuals who don’t have the luxury of a free democratic system with the rule of law?

Copson: These threats very often start, of course, before the government gets involved. In very conformist or closed societies, these threats start in the home. It can be first at home where speech is silenced, conformity is enforced, and freedom is stifled. That’s the system that exists because the state lets it or wants it, either by action or neglect. Then, of course, outside of the home, as you rightly say, states enforce conformity and deter opposition in various ways. In many countries, we’re talking about active censorship and the policing of language. In others, state shaping of the school curriculum is along closed lines and minimizes options in terms of freedom of thought. Certainly, they do not give much space to humanist ideas compared to the jurisdiction in the global North, where they may do. Of course, it is not perfect in the global North either. 

If we think of countries like Pakistan or India, there might be impunity for those who are not state actors but take actions the state implicitly approves of. We are all familiar with the stories of the student humanist who was lynched on his campus by his fellow students for being humanist. The humanist bloggers who were murdered in Bangladesh. No justice for them against their killers. The humanist activist who has been murdered in India. Again, no justice for them because the state allows this to happen. The people who take violent actions against humanists have effective impunity to do so. Of course, it is not just creating a situation in the family or in the public schools or other institutions or non-state actors to take violent action. Sometimes, the state gets involved itself. They can arrest and imprison humanists. Mubarak Bala in Nigeria is a good example. Humanists in Malaysia and Indonesia find themselves under legal sanctions and are imprisoned in at least two cases. There is a spectrum of social oppression and discrimination going all the way to active state persecution and, in some cases, death by the state, not just non-state actors.

Jacobsen: Emma Wadsworth-Jones was noting in Copenhagen various cases of people at risk. It tends to be much more difficult for women to come forward. How do identifiers like being a woman, being a part of the LGBTI community create an extra context in which one’s universal humanist rights can be prone to violation and financial status in a country can be much lower, typically, in cases where it’s violence from the state, community, social, and otherwise?

Copson: That’s right. They are aggravating factors that exacerbate the nature of the persecution that you might suffer. There is another dimension to it, as well. Humanists and humanist organizations will very commonly be LGBTI activists, women’s rights activists, and democratic activists, which makes it more political and makes it even more dangerous. Not just personal identity, as you correctly say, which can be aggravating factors for state persecution, but also the commitment implicit in a humanist approach to advocate for the rights of marginalized people. In India, for example, caste discrimination and ethnic discrimination, when it is often ethnic identity as a so-called untouchable cast is an aggravating factor. This is intersectional discrimination that people suffer in these contexts. It is very real. Of course, the additional factor is people who have abandoned their religion. We’re talking about the abandonment of religion in these contexts because the family and home life are often very religious. Many of the people who have put aside religion and adopted a humanist approach to life have done so because of what they suffered as women, as LGBT people. That’s an added dimension, too.

Jacobsen: I don’t have the answer to this question. 

Copson: Neither do I.

Jacobsen: What was the…

Copson: …Does that imply you knew the answers to all your other questions? [Laughing]

Jacobsen: I had inklings. What was the first humanist organization in the global South?

Copson: I don’t know the answer to that question either.

Jacobsen: In terms of contemporary Humanism, there is a formal structure. 

Copson: I would say it was, probably, almost certainly either in Latin America with the Positivists or in India under the British-inspired rationalists. They’re the two oldest trends or traditions of organised Humanism I know. When Gandhi was in the U.K., he was a member of what is now Humanists U.K.  for example! There’s certainly formal Indian rationalism; it had an organized structure in the 19th century. So, that would almost certainly make it one of the earliest. I know Brazil had positivist meeting houses in the 1880s. But anyway, all that is only in terms of organizations. There are humanist traditions that go much longer than that in terms of common sense and cultural background in all places. The Humanism of society rather than the Humanism of organization.

Jacobsen: Who would you consider the best historian of Humanism?

Copson: What an invidious question to ask [Laughing].

Jacobsen: Who do you like, historians of Humanism? I would like to reach out to them for an interview.

Copson: Oh! David Nash is very good at 19th-century Humanism in particular. Callum Brown and Charlie Lynch are very good at 20th-century Humanism. Those three recently collaborated on the history of Humanists in the U.K. Sarah Bakewell has written a very good recent book on humanists and non-organizational humanists. She talks about organized humanists as well. It’s from Europe back to the Renaissance. Some medieval humanists in Europe she identifies. I think she’s right to do so. Uttam, who is one of the ambassadors of Humanists International. He is writing a book about the history of humanists in Nepal that goes back. That’s very interesting. Jeaneane Fowler wrote well on the ancient Indian Humanism of 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. Her husband, Merve Fowler, has written about Humanist ideas in China. These are not about organized humanists but about humanist ideas. Charles Freeman and Catherine Nixey have written quite well about the humanist tendency in pre-Christian Europe, Greece and Rome. There is the timeless multi-volume history of freethought by J.M. Robertson. That is a good work. A.C. Grayling, of course. Towards the Light is a wonderful history. He writes not just about humanists but liberalism.

Jacobsen: Why does this myth persist that Humanism is a North American or a European phenomenon? 

Copson: I suppose Western European culture, including its global exports of culture and its imposition of culture, has contained an awful large amount of implicit Humanism. So, it’s the region where Humanism had its biggest articulation across many different state boundaries and languages for a long time. Inevitably, I think that’s going to colour things. Often, colonization and the spread of Christianity eliminated Indigenous humanist traditions around the world when European states, whom Humanism very seldom inspired in their colonial efforts, came in. Colonizing forces deliberately reinforced religious traditions in the countries they colonized as opposed to more freethinking humanist traditions as a way of dividing and ruling but also safely categorizing and regulating the people they controlled in the colonial states.

I think those are just two of the reasons. Of course, especially when monotheistic religions colonized cultures in the modern period, they were often written down, whereas a lot of preceding humanistic culture was very oral. So, that is another explanation. We only know about the classical Indian humanist tradition because there are texts. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know. That’s the same in China. It’s the same in Europe. For a long time in Europe, the humanistic culture of the ancient world was lost because the texts weren’t accessible or framed in a way that would reveal them as being texts of the humanistic approach. So, I think there are lots of reasons. During the colonizing phase of Europe, Christianity had a lot of power. During the colonizing phases of the Arab world, Islam had an awful lot of power. In that context, they’ve eliminated a lot of freethought and a lot of humanist traditions. They’ve been great allies in that global effort to a great extent!

Jacobsen: Last question, with the recent declaration refinement, 2022, what aspect of the global South cultural and intellectual milieu added to the refinement of humanist principles compared to 2002, 1952?

Copson: The Amsterdam Declaration, of course, strives to be a universal document. So, I would see the principles within it as expressing all humanists’ aspirations. But compared to 1952, there was a far larger number of people from the global South involved in drafting the declaration and representatives from the global South involved in commenting on and agreeing on the declaration. Suppose I had to pick out two or three of the subtle differences between ’22 and ’52 that I noticed during my chairing of the commission drafting the declaration; the global South was especially motivated. (And I don’t want to imply there were global South concerns and then there were global North concerns, but there were things that were particular concerns.) I think the first one was what we are just talking about, making sure it is clear humanist ideas have occurred around the world and across time and are not just part of the Western tradition. In 1952, it was firmly said that Humanism was the outcome of a long tradition, but it was silent about where that tradition came from. In 2022, we explicitly said humanist values have a tradition in most societies. That’s what we said. It is as old as human civilization. That was very important for people from the global South. It was for all of us, but particularly, perhaps, important to their representatives. Racism and prejudice were explicitly referenced in 2022, but it wasn’t in 1952. I think that was important. The most severe racism in the world in terms of its consequences on individual lives is either within the global South or affects migrants from the global South to the global North or their descendants. That gives an extra dimension to the phenomenon of racism and how we thought humanists had to explicitly express our opposition, our anti-racism. 

Then I think there was – and this was where there was only a slight preference for this coming from the global South compared with the global North – the reference to human beings as part of and responsible to the rest of the natural world and life on this planet. Of course, everyone probably cares about that, or anyone who cares about the short-term and long-term future of humanity cares about that. I think it’s particularly acute to those in the global South who are on the sharp end of the climate crisis because the contexts of the states in which they live lack the infrastructure to help them deal with the severe changes that we’re going through, especially compared to the governments of the global North. The governments of the global North, with all their resources, can’t even deal with the consequences of the climate crisis so certainly, state infrastructure in the global South finds itself in a particularly weak position to deal with it. Those were amendments that had strong voices from the global South. But the thing about the declaration is that it’s a declaration of all of us.

Jacobsen: Andrew, thank you.

Copson: [Laughing] Okay, very good.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/08

Humanists International in Denmark

Humanists International hosted its 2023 combined World Congress and General Assembly in Copenhagen, Denmark, at the Scandic Copenhagen in early November. It was the first World Congress in almost a decade. A large gathering of hundreds of leaders within the humanist movement. At one point in the General Assembly, a proposal was made for a paper to make a specific statement on the war in Ukraine. A significant reference in the debate – highly respectful, by the way – between delegates from different countries’ Freethought organizations was the previous resolution accepted as a policy of Humanists International with Russia’s early full-scale invasion of Ukraine: February 24, 2022. The main point of contention was whether or not a new policy on the Russo-Ukrainian war was necessary because one existed from June 2022. The new one did not pass. The point of this article is both the acceptance or lack of the resolution and the debate and the previous policy emphasizing an update. A summary of the policy and its related contents will be provided.

Humanists International on the Russo-Ukrainian War

In a binational wartime scenario, it is an intriguing and subtle idea regarding wartime circumstances and rapid changes – say half a year to two years. The 2022 resolution, now policy, is entitled “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine.” The policy states:

Humanists International unequivocally condemns the unprovoked and illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine, which has caused an escalating humanitarian crisis, gross and systematic human rights abuses on a massive scale, and has led to apparent war crimes in some areas.

Russian actions constitute a clear violation of the UN Charter and international law, including human rights law.

Such violations are clearly facilitated and sustained by the oppressive human rights climate in the Russian Federation itself; the severe restrictions on free expression, the widespread propagation of disinformation, the repression of civil society, and the intimidation, censoring and criminalisation of journalists all contribute to the Russian government being able to wage a war of aggression without accountability at home.

Humanists International welcomes the suspension of Russia’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council.

Humanists International urges the Russian Federation to cease all hostilities and to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its troops from Ukraine (in line with the United Nation [sic] Resolution A/ES-11/L).

Humanists International calls on all its Members to urge their own governments to oppose the actions of the Russian Federation, which in their motivations and their consequences, stand directly opposed to all humanist aspirations.

The policy – or “position statement” – of Humanists International opens with an unequivocal stance against the invasion, defining the invasion as both “unprovoked” and “illegal” as well as a violation of the UN Charter and international law “including human rights law.” The argument in the policy proposes a line from the conditions or the “oppressive human rights climate” within the Russian Federation to the “clearly facilitated and sustained” violations above from the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine.

A proverbial laundry list is given to substantiate this argument about the Russian Federation. “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine” states, “…the severe restrictions on free expression, the widespread propagation of disinformation, the repression of civil society, and the intimidation, censoring and criminalisation of journalists all contribute to the Russian government being able to wage a war of aggression without accountability at home.”

Humanists International “welcomed” the suspension of the Russian Federation’s UN Human Rights Council membership. The language became more active rather than merely affirmative, stipulating to “cease all hostilities and to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its troops from Ukraine (in line with the United Nation Resolution A/ES-11/L).” We will return to this UN resolution and clarify it. Humanists International called for their governments to oppose the Russian Federation, which restricted its unlawful actions. The reasoning behind these more active statements was the ‘opposition to all humanist aspirations based on the motivations and consequences’ of the strategic military aggressive actions of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.

The policy statement has strengths in its breadth on a well-defined subject matter, a particular conflict. It takes a definitive position. While the weaknesses may show with time, as the war progresses, newer war updates and human rights contexts may need explicit statements to refine such a position statement. This is most clearly represented in the UN resolution mentioned in the policy. That is the emphasis for me, as this was the most important takeaway from the debate between highly qualified and intelligent humanist leaders gathered in one place.

I have several questions. We can find some answers during formal investigation and clarification of the UN resolution and the policy of Humanists International. Firstly, do we reference particular conflicts at a regular clip? Because the concept has been broached with at least one conflict. Secondly, do we make the content perennial rather than seasonal, e.g., all wars, every war of a specific kind, a single war with a precise start date, and so on? Thirdly, when referencing relevant international rights bodies and associated documents, should these be open for minor edits to include newly adopted resolutions as conflicts continue instead of a proliferation of new resolutions after new resolutions to be considered as new policies as almost happened in 2023 in Copenhagen?

A/ES-11/L and A/ES-11/1

These are relevant questions. However, we must cover the A/ES-11/L resolution referenced in “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine.” The “A” stands for documents issued by the General Assembly. The “ES” indicates an Emergency Special Session convened to address urgent matters. “ES-11” refers to the 11th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly. “L” indicates the document is a draft resolution or a decision to be considered by the General Assembly. Thus, Humanists International, perhaps working with the limited information at the time or oversight of the original proposers of the resolution “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine,” posted a draft resolution and not a resolution of the United Nations in its statements, its – Humanists International’s – resolution becoming an eventual policy.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 would have been better. Especially given that the 2022 General Assembly of Humanists International was held June 3 to 5 in 2022, several months after the draft resolution, A/ES-11/L, became an actual resolution, A/ES-11/1, on March 2, 2022. A recommendation would be an amendment to this Humanists International policy – “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine” – to reference full resolutions and not draft resolutions in its policies. Moving from a draft resolution to a resolution means the draft resolution went through a main committee of the UN. A single-letter change in the policy of Humanists International may be warranted to improve the efficacy of the ethical and relevant resolution supportive of international humanist values.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 was adopted through the 11th emergency special session. The purpose was to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory and simultaneously declare the need to withdraw Russian forces from Ukraine and reverse the Russian Federation’s decision to recognize Donetsk and Luhansk as self-declared republics. That is powerful and arose in two general assemblies of Humanists International, underlining its importance in the resolution, “Position Statement on Russian Invasion of Ukraine” (2022). Intriguingly, and I was not present at the General Assembly of Humanists International in 2022 to make a qualitative commentary, the lattermost purpose of Resolution ES-11/1 was unincorporated, i.e., reversal of the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as self-declared republics. This could be a time limit in the General Assembly. It could be minutiae orthogonal to the central intent to pass a resolution as a new policy. Regardless, that is something for the record. When analyzed, A/ES-11/L and A/ES-11/1 appear identical, differing only in force of implication.

The Global Consensus on Russian Aggression and Resolution ES-11/2

The General Assembly and World Congress in August of 2023 was about 17 months after the instigation of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Of those who voted against it, only 5 Member States did so: Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Russia, and Syria. The UN record was clear on the global consensus on the aggression against Ukraine by Russia: 141 voted for the resolution, five against, 35 abstained, and 12 absented themselves. In other words, the vast majority of the Member States of the United Nations condemned the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. By passing this resolution based on Resolution ES-11/1, the Members and Associate Members of Humanists International fell in line with the overwhelming international consensus in condemning the Russian Federation’s, under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, invasion of Ukraine with the demand for complete withdrawal. As there was a reconvening on March 24, 2022, to reiterate the support of Resolution ES-11/1 in Resolution ES-11/2, Humanists International’s policy would fit with Resolution ES-11/2, too.

Bearing in mind, the entire 11th special session followed the February 24, 2022, attacks by the Russian Federation and then a draft resolution was put forward and vetoed by the Security Council. This emergency session became necessary. When a permanent member vetoes actions in the Security Council, and it – the Security Council – is deemed to have failed in its role, then a special session is called; that is what happened when the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. A draft resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops was vetoed. Thus, a special emergency session was called. So, a special emergency session is an unscheduled meeting in the UN General Assembly to focus on an urgent and particular situation for maintaining international peace and security when the UN Security Council fails in its ability to act based on a veto by a permanent member. This mechanism was formulated in the United for Peace resolution as a fallback for international security and peace. The adoption of Resolution ES-11/2 was a recognition of the continuance of the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

The Documentary References of A/ES-11/1

As a slight aside, A/ES-11/L.1 included the following countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, North Macedonia, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay. 

A/ES-11/L.1/Add.1 – a supplement to A/ES-11/L.1 – added Barbados and Cambodia. Now, A/ES-11/1, the formal resolution, includes references to S/2014/136 and A/ES-11/L.1, A/ES-11/L.1/Add.1, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, Security Council resolution 2623 (2022), document S/Agenda/8979, General Assembly resolution 377 A (V), resolution 2625 (XXV), resolution 3314 (XXIX), the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Budapest Memorandum), the Declaration on Friendly Relations, the Minsk agreements (Protocol and II), and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. These will be covered in order.

Contextualization of A/ES-11/1 References

S/2014/136 is a “Letter dated 28 February 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council.” It states:

Due to the deterioration of the situation in the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, Ukraine, which threatens the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and upon the relevant instruction of my Government, I have the honour to request an urgent meeting of the Security Council in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of the United Nations.

I also have the honour to request that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, a representative of the Government of Ukraine be allowed to participate in the meeting and to make a statement.

(Signed) Yuriy Sergeyev Ambassador Permanent Representative

The “Honour” for Sergeyev is a formal declaration for a severe context of human rights abuse. These abuses only exacerbated into the present moment.

A/ES-11/L.1 was the draft document. The draft resolution referenced in the policy is “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine” by Humanists International in 2022.

A/ES-11/L.1/Add.1 was a supplement or an addition to the draft resolution by adding two other countries, as referenced before, Barbados and Cambodia.

Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations speaks to the idea of the sovereignty of all Member States, fulfillment of obligations, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-use of force, assistance to the United Nations, and non-intervention in domestic affairs. In total, it states:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

• The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
• All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
• All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
• All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
• All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
• The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
• Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Security Council resolution 2623 (2022) was the call for the eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations to convene on the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Albania and the United States introduced the resolution. It was adopted on February 27, 2022.

Document S/Agenda/8979 was the document for examination within the eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations. This document referenced S/2014/136, namely the letter from Sergeyev.

General Assembly resolution 377 A (V), also known as “Uniting for Peace,” speaks to the failures of the Security Council on a contingent basis. If unanimity does not exist between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council while with a failure to enact international peace and security, then the UN General Assembly will consider and make recommendations to UN members for collective measures for the maintenance of international peace and security. This becomes relevant in the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Resolution 2625 (XXV), or the “The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,” states a comprehensive stipulation on the principle of self-determination.

Resolution 3314 (XXIX) was adopted in 1974. It provides a comprehensive definition of aggression. This includes specific acts like invasion, attack, and military occupation. It assigns the primary responsibility to the UN Security Council to determine acts of aggression and take necessary measures.

The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or the Helsinki Accords, was signed in 1975. The basis was an easing of Cold War tensions. The Helsinki Accords gave an international cooperation framework on economic and scientific cooperation, human rights, and security. The Accords helped legitimize the post-World War II borders of European nations with more respect for human rights and Eastern Bloc freedoms.

The Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Budapest Memorandum) was significant in Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Ukraine relinquished its nuclear weapons. It was the third largest in the world at the time. Ukraine, acceding to the NPT, became a non-nuclear weapon state. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America provided assurances of security and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty, including borders and refraining from using threats or force. The post-Soviet States, due to this, did some denuclearization.

The Declaration on Friendly Relations is the newer and more used UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) name. Any reference to The Declaration on Friendly Relationsrefers to Resolution 2625 (XXV).

The Minsk agreements references the Minsk Protocol from September 2014 and the Minsk II Agreement from February 2015. Minsk Protocol was signed by the DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic), LPR (Luhansk People’s Republic), Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The goal was to de-escalate: get a ceasefire, withdraw troops, and establish a Ukrainian-Russian border security zone. The Minsk II Agreement followed this protocol with the participation of France and Germany with an outline for a ceasefire, local elections of Donetsk and Luhansk, constitutional reforms, and the withdrawal of heavy weapons. On February 22, 2022, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin declared the Minsk agreements as non-existent, followed by the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977 are four treaties for international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The foci are civilians, war prisoners, and sick and wounded soldiers. Additional Protocol I of 1977 expands to civilian safeguarding and regulation of conduct hostilities to minimize destruction and suffering.

The Conclusion of Humanists International General Assembly and World Congress 2023

A/ES-11/1‘s focus is the humanitarian and refugee crisis created by the Russian Federation’s aggression under President Vladimir Putin, with an emphasis on the importance of Ukraine as a grain and agricultural exporter internationally. This sits “Position Statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine” referencing A/ES-11/L within United Nations norms, humanitarian efforts, humanist values. The global influence and focus of Humanists International in its policy and the democratic debate and discussion period show the practical application of global humanism in a context of international conflagration and the need for diplomatic solidarity and humanitarian solutions. Even though the war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine continues, these documents provide an international response and framework for dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian war. United Nations diplomacy mirrors much of the humanist ethos exemplified in Humanists International. The respectful debate and discourse on the new resolution on the Russo-Ukrainian war in the General Assembly 2023 of Humanists International provided a window into humanist values across cultures.

This leads to some of the questions internally posed: Do we reference particular conflicts at a regular clip? Do we try to make the content perennial rather than seasonal, e.g., all wars, every war of a specific kind, a single war with a precise start date, and so on? When referencing relevant international rights bodies and associated documents, should these be open for minor edits to include newly adopted resolutions as conflicts continue instead of a proliferation of new resolutions after new resolutions to be considered as new policies, as it almost happened in Copenhagen in 2023? I have yet to learn the first, but I plan to evaluate all Humanists International policies now. Second, this policy and the eventualities of decline or rejection of the new policy add to the “Position Statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.” We seem to strike a balance, based on the limited available evidence, and being present at the debate in Copenhagen, of a single war and then leaving the emphasis perennial on this war since the war is incomplete or all sides have resolved combat in the war and withdrawal all troops, etc. Third, I argue for a change in bylaws, if not already present, for a change in resolutions already accepted as policies based on updates to single wars. I would also argue for, at least, a double resolution year with one presented against all forms of war based on humanist values. War may be a human universal. However, we can stipulate a striving for a world without wars and specific ones dedicated to the condemnation of it. Our humanist values demand it; our actions showed the possibilities to me.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

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

Mario Canseco is a consistent source of interesting information. In Business in Vancouver, he described the connection to affluence and religion of Canadians. 

With inflation, housing issues, homelessness, and poverty, Canadians value faith less and affluence and comfort more. That makes sense. People want to live well and free. Research Co. surveys Canadians periodically. As a highly assessed population, we know stuff about us. 

Family and friends longside the aforementioned affluence and comfort are stable aspects of a good life to us. Only a minor decrease in their importance. Interestingly, national pride differs per province. 

Albertans appear to be more national pride conscious while Quebecers appear the least so. Affluence is more important among men and younger Canadians. Younger Canadians is defined as age 18 to 34. 

Canseco remarks on religion as the least important aspect. This is dominance of a liberalized religious culture followed by a secular culture. We do not live in a post-secular culture because the society has not been fully secularized, simply look at the 2023 Freedom of Thought Report of Humanists International.

Even with this decline in religious importance, Canadians identify more as spiritual. I have commented on this in other publications. The idea of religion declining as a win isn’t necessarily. The idea of transference of these fabricated wants becomes the issue. 

People are indoctrinated not merely with content of mind, but with styles of cognition. The styles remain when the content is disbelieved; hence, the move to spirituality as a filler. The former is structured and wrong; the latter is unstructured and wrong. The styles of cognition leading to them, the same. 

Canseco notes how this leads to differences in political affiliation with Liberal Party and NDP identifying more as spiritual and Conservative Party voters moving more towards a flat difference between spiritual and religion identities. 

With only half of Canadians as Christian, a huge number of people identify as atheist or agnostic. British Columbia is a huge place for this. The number of Canadians who never attendance religious services has gone up and many only for special gatherings, but weekly services is up. 

In the context of economic challenges, affluence matters to Canadians while religion not so much. 

Thanks, Canseco, I appreciate you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/06

I love little wins for the secular community. Actually, this one might be more than minor. 

Abigail Turner in CTV News Vancouver pointed out some of the encouraging recent data on religion in British Columbians’ lives. Namely, it continues to hold much less sway. 

According to Research Co., 41% of individuals in B.C. have no religious affiliation. That is staggering. In much of the world, and indeed the Western hemisphere, this is not the case. Thus if you’re in B.C., take note, you live in a lucky area. 

Cost of living may rise. Housing costs and rent may go up. However, whereas religion is a major factor in people’s lives – another factor of oppression, here, it is not. It is a sign of something odd, not normative. 

Take into account, for most of Canadian history, to be Christian, for example, was to be the norm, to partake of religious belief was normative, now, in British Columbia, it’s inured. Even the religious, they’re liberalized. Neither is normative, but stigma lifts with inclines in representation, demographically. 

Mario Canseco, President of Research Co., said, “That definitely raises questions about the future of some of these institutions when you have a younger generation who are not in tune with something like this.”

The largest drop in belief has been, definitively, among the young aged 18 to 34. If you are young and in British Columbia, your chances of adherence to the dominant religious orthodoxies is much lower. 

Rev. Rhian Walker at St. Andrew’s Wesley United Church said, “I think that Gen Z and Millennials are looking at religion very differently… I think religion, organized religion, has been on the decline in the western world.”

Walker is correct. I have noted this for many years. I was wrong in some prior estimates. However, 2024 does seem to be the tipping point year in which less than half of the population of Canada will identify as Christian. 

Furthermore, the only significant contributor to religious demographics isn’t the birth rate, as Canada is below the threshold for replacement. The issue is the immigrant population tends to be far more religious than natural born Canadians. That’s about it.  

Noth anti-immigrant at all, by the way. I come from a family of Scandinavian and Dutch “settlers” or “immigrants.” I am a Canadian culturally through and through, though departing from some Canadian norms. Half of the family was religious. It would be an intriguing family query as to the degree of religion now. 

Apparently, criticism of “capitalism, colonialism and imperialism” lead to further loss of religion – maybe. Often, it seems more natural loss of practices and repetition of dogmas with each generation because – well – it’s hard and Canadians are busy and distractible. 

Ian Bushfield, Executive Director of the British Columbia Humanist Association, said, “We’re seeing across the world and across British Columbia, people are finding values in different ways.” Ian is correct. Although, arguably, religion is still increasing faster than irreligion is rising. It may be more of a developed nation item at the moment. 

“People are still striving for that meaning and purpose, but we can derive meaning and purpose through an understanding of one another and through science,,” Bushfield emphasized. 

If you need community, you can reach out to any number of secular organizations in Canada. 

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/05

Genesis 1:28 (KJV) says, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

God commands a dominion of Man over Earth, as God blessed Man over all creatures of the sea, the air, and the Earth. A striking proclamation from the most influential religious text ever: The Bible.

Furthermore, Psalm 72:8 says, “He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” Man shall dominate and shall have dominion over every living thing under God’s Command and God’s Law, in other words.

Canada became a bulwark of secularism in crossing this ideology. Its status as a Member State of the United Nations with far more atheists, agnostics, and humanists than the majority of nation-states stands as a testament to the influence of modernity in Canada and, thus, on the cosmopolitan world.

By “cosmopolitan world,” I do not mean necessarily “the West.” I mean the broad set of nations influenced by the best of West, East, North, and South cultures and histories with respect and even admiration, at times, for the contributions to global culture.

Secular human rights, as an international ethic, build into this. A religious movement has been building within the Christian religion over the idea of this passage, specifically from the Bible and then the interpretation of this as a command for this world.

Not merely as a claim for themselves but one for themselves and everyone else. It becomes an absolutist socio-political philosophy. Apparently, this entire Christian theocratic renewal movement began in the 1980s with the use of the terms “dominion theology’ and “dominionism” in texts.

Jacques Poitras of CBC News pointed out the threats to this theology in Canada. He talked about a group of Christians gathering together to take a photo akin to the Fathers of Confederation. That’s merely a referral when Canada had all-male politicians, and only white men, as far as I know, able to vote.

It was a less equal Canada. These Christians gathered together for the photo to show “we’re going to be who you were, in a new time, in order to be God’s hands and feet for Canada, to reestablish the Dominion of Canada as something that honours God,” according to Russell-Chipp Tatyana Russell-Chipp, a missionary and musician.

Brent Harris, a Saint John city councillor who has worked as a minister, said, “It’s prophetic to them… Using that word was the Lord coming in to put his fingerprint on the nation, and when the resurrection happens, you know this will be the nation of Canada rising to its proper place in the kingdom.”

The Canadian Prophetic Council holds a “belief in the supremacy of the Word of God.” ​​Faytene Grasseschi (née Kryskow) is a Christian activist from Quispamsis, New Brunswick. This was an important part of the commentary for Poitras.

Grasseschi leads the Canadian Prophetic Council. She runs 4 My Canada with open support for Premier Blaine Higgs based on changes to a policy protecting LGBTQ+ kids, Policy 713. And you know what, she has full right to freely express these views and supports. It doesn’t mean a commentary ain’t comin’.

In a CBC News interview, she said, “What motivated me is that I love Canada… If you love something you get involved, and it’s really as simple as that.” Her and others’ ideas are to influence the Conservative Party of Canada based on the New Apostolic Reformation.

A former member of New Apostolic Reformation, Sarah Ecker, said, “They just want to come across as very caring and pleasant and normal, regular people, and they’re really good at that… But then behind the scenes they’re much more radical in their beliefs.”

They aim to make society mirror heaven for Jesus to come back. This is fundamentalism, writ politics and religion turned into a political tool. Ecker claims no card exists and no formal statements of ideology as an organization.

It becomes a conservative movement matching some more radical movements in the 1960s and 1970s in North America in that sense. There is no clear leader, no formal ideology, and no central organization, but everyone follows and gets the point: Guerilla theological politics, guerilla theology.

These individuals build networks, though. These tell more of the truth of the situation. Grassechi has links with US religious leaders Cindy Jacobs and Stacey Campbell. Wagner co-founded Generals International to engage in “spiritual warfare.” It sounds clownish because it is clownish. Campbell founded the Canadian Prophetic Council.

This leads back to Dominionism, which new Apostolic Reform adherents believe, following Genesis 1:28 and Psalm 72:8, “Christians are called by God to rule, to have authority and penetrate and have influence on the social and political institutions of their country and the world,” in this theology. It could be interpreted as stewardship of the Earth, a good.

But it could be interpreted as intent to establish a Christian theocracy, which seems more likely as an intent. Grasseschi is amongst those with such a theology.

Peter Wagner named New Apostolic Reformation. He defined the areas of targeted change: arts, business, education, family, government, media, and religion. In 2011, he said the goal is “the blessings and prosperity of the Kingdom of God… permeate all areas of society… [and] push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on Earth… This is what we mean by Dominionism.” It’s simple.

This is a recipe for Christian theocracy at a national level, at the least. The idea is the framing of the theocratic ideas in non-theological terms to pass in political discourse. They will play the victim, too. I have no doubt. The idea of Christian persecution while persecuting in the nation’s history is a common theme.

Even on questions about the denial of equal rights for others, e.g., when former Conservative Party of Canada Leader, Andrew Scheer, was questioned on same-sex marriage, this was proclaimed as anti-Catholic bigotry.

With the truth out now, the basic premise was the theology of the Catholic Church was influencing conservative politicians. This influence denied equal rights, in political and social stance, to homosexuals in Canada. The bigotry was a conservative stance, then projected when questioned as the bigotry of everyone else against Catholics.

It’s not anti-Catholic bigotry to demand equal rights; it’s Catholics being anti-equality when holding views denying equality to others. This would be apart from red herrings of good deeds done in other countries or helping the poor and afflicted in society.

Fundamentally, as we see with splits between churches, denominations, and faiths, in general, the fundamentals do not change.

In a 2005 book, Grasseschi made dramatic claims about dominion, etc. She claims to have evolved and matured in views, expressing this as possible for any person. Russell-Chipp is skeptical based on attendance at Grasseschi’s church.

Lying for Christ is a known phenomenon. Pious fraud is another name. It is the idea that the ends justify the means. Or the idea that lying or falsifying information for the advancement of the faith is a valid enterprise because it advances the faith. This could be happening here.

If it is happening in New Brunswick, then this may be happening in more populated areas of Canada, too. Politicized religion is a bigger problem in the United States, as Dominionism is a political force there. It could happen here, too.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/04

I disagree with most things Rev. Deb Walker stands for belief-wise. However, we agree here. We need everyone in together on climate action. Her article “I’m attending COP28 as a faith leader” is succinct and important. 

She opens, “Religious teachings are full of lessons about caring for the planet. Christian Scriptures are full of detailed examples of God’s revelation in nature; from the first story of creation in the Book of Genesis, to Leviticus, where we are reminded that the land, too, must sometimes rest.”

Religious traditions’ scriptures, certainly, remain open to interpretation and the proliferation of denominations within religions attests to this. However, if their readings of purported holy texts aligns with practical goals for global stability, e.g., environmental stability, then this seems like a pragmatic good. Not a truthful good, but a moral truth by derivation from a falsehood, i.e., the religious text. 

In all practical terms, I’ll take it.

Her sense of “wonder and mystery” from the natural world does mirror aspects of a wonder or marvel about the natural world. Yet, the extension of this in a humanism would be a desire to understand as reinforced by this sense of wonder or marvel at mystery. 

Where, mystery, in many cases, becomes a puzzle to solve for, not a solution but, a codification of nature’s rules in human linguistic representation for comprehension. Rev. Walker and I agree. Thank you, Deb. 

She provided further thoughtful reflection on COP28 or the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai “as a Christian climate observer.” I would compliment her more than she lets on here. She is a climate activist. She is active in gathering information and partaking of this movement. 

“The Church is the perfect body of stubborn, hopeful humans. As a minister in the United Church of Canada, I serve a faithful, struggling congregation in Vancouver. We are struggling because the world has already been changed,” Walker said, “and the church with it. We struggle with the stains of our history: the participation in residential schools and the Sixties Scoop. Yet, here we are at the crossroads of our reconciliation work and climate justice. And this time, we are poised to make a difference.”

I love this and like her so much for this. This simple humility and recognition of an authentic need to steward nature and mistakes of the Church in the past relative to the United Church of Canada contributions in particular or the Christian Church more generally means so much. In observing Residential School survivors, the admission is precursor to apology. Apology includes admission. Time does not heal all; institutions and individuals can help, though.

Thank you for being part of this leadership the country so dearly needs when denialism and inappropriate skepticism is prevalent in several sectors of the country, I appreciate you. Walker noted something unfortunate and unfair. There hasn’t been a faith pavilion in the UN’s climate summits, at least “in the heart oft he Blue Zonem where meetings and negotiations take place.” 

It’s the United Nations. People have equal right to represent their faiths and their beliefs, and their expressions of these faiths and beliefs. It’s a nuanced touch to provide this for faiths. It would be a good touch for the next to be inclusive of the non-religious ‘faiths’ – if they can, indeed, be titled that – for further representation. 

It’s akin to inter-religious diablogues needing an extension, by titular definition, to inter-belief dialogues for an inclusion of the panoply of the non-religious. It’s not about conservative or liberal religions, or irreligion or faith. The idea is cosmopolitanism in a globalized world. Whether nationalistic or globalistic, cosmopolitan orientation permits conversation beyond these differentiations. 

Walker continued, “And for the first time, this meeting of the parties is hosted by a Muslim nation in a venue that declares we submit to a higher power, where we will stand shoulder to shoulder, listening to stories of transformation and hearing from communities that are bending towards healing and hope. But this is also a place where the fossil fuel industry holds great power and is continuously looking to lock down business deals.”

In these environments of trade and global commerce, we can note the interplay of faith and national economies. In largely Muslim societies, whether by law or demographics, or both, faith plays a subtle and pervasive role in every facet of a person’s life. 

Even if non-believing, the contingency in personal narrative is a religious one. We cannot escape this. Therefore, the language of advocacy for a climate conscious, environmentally sustainable, future should be nuanced and incorporative of the metaphors of so-called holy texts. 

In a sense, a construction of a religio-linguistic thought vis-a-vis the environment will be necessary for change on policy and trade impacting the environment, ultimately, due to anthropomorphic climate change. 

“I am here because faith leaders have an important role to play in the environmental movement and the future of climate justice — we have circles of influence, we work with communities that value beauty, that care deeply for others, and we are people who believe in reciprocity across the generations,” Walker said. 

That’s the key. Those are secular communal messages about intergenerational responsibility, compassion for others, and stewardship of the environment. One group believes in an intervening theity who answers prayers and inspires written codifications of its thoughts, and another adheres to the best scientific approximations of a naturally arising cosmos. 

The translation of her statements into traditional religious language can communicate using a common language – religious grammar – for universal action on a common concern: the climate. It is a common concern expressed in different lenses. It’s not a moral relativism inasmuch as a relative perspectivism on a more universal moral frame. Walker gave a detailed paragraph abotu her path and how faith communities can be common cause allies here.

“It’s not surprising to me that my path to this Christian Climate Observer Program has been meteoric. I attended one meeting last January that was hosted by Sierra Club BC, which led to another meeting where I met Dr. Suzanne Simard, an author and professor at UBC’s Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences,” Walker said, “This led to a series of workshops with local faith leaders who made up the inaugural cohort of Sierra Club BC’s Mother Tree Local Leaders Program. Now I am in Dubai. I believe I have been summoned.”

She concluded on a note of needing to work with faith leaders around the world. I agree with her, but I would make a call for a more universal vision of the billion or so others who have no formal faith. They have a non-faith, an irreligion, a non-religion, a sense of meaning without God, a sense of duty without religion. 

It is in a similar manner for an argument for a unifying vision as with a small change from inter-religion to inter-belief. We can do inter-belief unity on common goals for decent life survival of the species with a care and concern for stewardship of the environment sustaining us. 

As Walker notes, “In my community of faith, we accept that we are all on the journey. I want to stand side by side with women from Mauritius. I want to meet youth from Kenya and Indigenous leaders from Aotearoa. I have an entire community of active climate justice seekers following my experience and ready to take action together. In these stressful times of climate grief, we need community more than ever. That’s why I am here.”

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/04

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 in 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. Visit Sam’s Web site: http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com.

Here we talk about the psychology of modern warfare.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Welcome back, Dr. Vaknin! I returned from Ukrainian territories visiting several cities in rapid succession over two weeks in late November and early December. I have war on the mind. Which makes me think about the mind in war, what is the nature of war?

Dr. Sam Vaknin: 

Welcome back in one piece! 

War brings out the best in us and the worst in us. 

Throughout the ages, war has been perceived as the epitome and quintessence of masculinity (even when women, like the Amazons, had been doing the soldiering): valor, heroism, courage (overcoming fear), selflessness, altruism, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and protectiveness over the weak and the meek. 

But violent conflict leads to negative identity formation: defining oneself in opposition to the Other by dehumanizing, objectifying, and demonizing the enemy.

Most wars are cast as morality plays (good vs, evil). They amount to role playing in an adversarial rule-based game (as revealed when veterans on both sides meet after the war is over, acting all chummy and convivial). 

Winning a war validates the triumphant party: it is proof of a divine blessing and of having been chosen (akin to the Protestant work ethic which regards success in business as proof positive of God’s favor). The Nazi SS had Gott mit uns carved on their daggers and belt buckles!

Finally, war mediates the tension between individual and collective via the concept of self-sacrifice (special ops are the middle ground).

Jacobsen: What happens to human psychology around war at a distance?

Vaknin: On the one hand, there is the pornography of extreme, gory battle. War is thus perceived as the ultimate reality TV, a video game come alive, or a horror film incarnate. There is vicarious gratification in witnessing all this safely, from the comfort of one’s living room, having been spared the atrocities. A smug sensation of accomplishment, of having gotten away with it.

Distant wars also legitimize aggressive and entitled virtue signaling and competitive morality, a noxious self-aggrandizing and ostentatious form of self-imputed altruism. 

There are, of course, those who empathize with the dying and the wounded and the suffering and do their best to help without seeking the attendant accolades of the professional do-gooder. 

Jacobsen: What happens to human psychology in war up close?

Vaknin: From personal experience, it is a grind. There is no clear end or horizon to it all. It feels like it could last forever.

PTSD is very common and so is a mounting and all-consuming paranoia, a sense of extreme isolation and ubiquitous threat. It is as if war is a giant gaslighting experience where the very fabric of reality is torn asunder. 

In many wars, there is little movement or accomplishments. The scene is frozen, surreal. Gruesome death and mutilation are constant companions.

There is an acute fear of abandonment, of getting lost and an extreme dependency on others, an external locus of control.

War regresses its participants to infancy. Primitive psychological defense mechanisms take over: splitting, alloplastic defenses, defiance, acting out/crazymaking, moral collapse, magical or superstitious thinking.

Jacobsen: What separates the psychology of a bystander in war versus a combatant in war?

Vaknin: Civilians in war are instantly and all-pervasively traumatized: they react with a form of trauma bonding or Stockholm Syndrome. They perceive soldiers – even soldiers on their side! – as looming, inexorable hotheaded, trigger-happy, demented, and reckless threats who are hellbent on endangering all and sundry. It is as if they are caught in the crossfire between two rival criminal gangs. They are wary of both parties of combatants and this radical loss of the ability to trust and to feel safe (no “secure base”) yields terror, emotional dysregulation, and self-destructive acting out in some – or a freeze response in others. 

Jacobsen: When it comes to politics and its psychology before, during, and after war, what characterizes the minds of the political class citizen – from high to low status – in each of these phases of war?

Vaknin: All politicians regard war as a legitimate and integral part of the toolbox of human affairs – and justly so: it is. Hostilities are always in the background of diplomacy. Violent conflict is ineluctable, inexorable, and periodic. In many cases, warfare is considered a superior form of geopolitical signaling and the only efficacious way to securing goals. Politicians are, therefore, fatalists: they are resigned to war, inured to it, comprehend it as a force of nature and the reification of “being human”. 

Jacobsen: When it comes to politics and its psychology before, during, and after war, what characterizes the minds of the non-political class citizen – from high to low status – in each of these phases of war?

Vaknin: Vociferous protestations aside, people love a good war: it is a prime variant of dramatic entertainment, a kind of exalted sport. They exult in it. This state of mind comprises extreme anxiety and fear, of course. Every experience is rendered sharper, more crisp, and memorable. In clinical terms, war is a psychotic fantasy, a mass psychegenic illness of sorts. 

Jacobsen: What factors of human psychology increase the odds of war and decrease the odds of war?

Vaknin: Nothing decreases the odds of war. It is a myth that economic prosperity and democracy are bulwarks against the eruption of violent conflict. Conversely, literally everything in human psychology predisposes us to aggression. Even empathy makes us choose sides and aggress against the abuser on behalf of the victim-du-jour. War is, therefore, the natural state of the human mind: it caters to numerous deepset psychological needs. It cleanses, establishes a new equilibrium, and catalyses the replacement of the old with the new, for better or for worse.

Jacobsen: What are the positives and negatives of war in the advancement of human civilization? 

Vaknin: War is a cultural-social activity that facilitates intimacy, bonding and cooperation, technological innovation, and the emergence of a cathartic new social or political order each and every time. It is a rite of passage, a redemptive ritual, an engine of progress, and a demarcator of eras. 

Jacobsen: What happens to the mass psychology of a citizenry – of a society – of the original provoking power, the aggressor, and the defender, in the long term from war, after war?

Vaknin: Humans who are exposed to repeated violence – in wars, in prison, even in hospitals – grow insensitive to it. They dehumanize and brutalize both the Other and themselves. They are suspended in a post-traumatic state, replete with infantile psychological defenses, dissociation, cognitive distortions (such as grandiosity), and emotional numbing. 

Jacobsen: Given the above, what can be the coda – the summative principles – of human psychology at war to comprehend individuals and humanity vis-a-vis war?

Vaknin: Like climate change, War is a human phenomenon. Rather than confront it self-delusionally, we better accept it and adapt to it. It is not going away, no matter what we do. So, why waste our scarce resources on its elimination? 

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sam. 

Vaknin: Thank you for enduring me yet again. You are a brave man, indeed.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

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

Jacek Tabisz is the Vice-President and Secretary of the Polish Rationalist Association and the author of New Humanism. 

Here we talk about Glenn Gould, Canada and British Columbia, and Humanism and Rationalism in Poland.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We met at an obscure Danish pub with Kaja Bryx, Kacem Al Ghazzali, and Kamil Gawel. I forget off the top if there were others during that time. It was at the outside gatherings of the World Humanist Congress and General Assembly of Humanists International 2023. Now, those meetings are noteworthy and important, but even more distinct and relevant than the others with our meetings: Glenn Gould. I love Glenn Gould. He’s Canadian – so hooray. Let’s start on the late Gould, the man, as has been said, gave so much of himself and let so few know him. How did you discover his music?

Jacek Tabisz: I have loved listening to classical music since childhood. Back in the times of communism in Poland, I also became interested in the world of early music, although we were cut off from records from non-communist countries, including Canadian records. For Poles, they cost as much as half a salary. After the fall of communism, the first distributors of Western records, as well as monthly magazines about classical music, including early music, appeared in Poland. Canor, published by the University of Toruń, was particularly valuable. It was there that I learned about Gould’s piano art. At the beginning I was a bit skeptical, because I was hungry for harpsichord Bach. But Gould captivated me from the first sounds with his imagination and enormous talent. Today I understand that without him, Bach’s harpsichord would sound completely different.

Jacobsen: Does he have much of an imprint on Polish culture, or is it just you? I know he has a cult following in the Japanese culture. Other people in love with a dead person. 

Tabisz: Glenn Gould has supporters all over the world. Bruno Monsaigneon’s famous works about him (books, articles, DVDs) were translated into Polish quite quickly. Many Polish music critics considered it an important point of reference. When it comes to pianists, I cannot name anyone as inspired by Gould as Helen Grimaud. Maybe because we ourselves have very strong piano traditions living in the shadow of the great Chopin? The closest to Gould was the famous Polish-Hungarian pianist Piotr Anderszewski, about whom Mosaigneon also made an excellent film reportage.

Jacobsen: What are your favourite pieces by him? One of mine is BWV 54 with Russell Oberlin. 

Tabisz: I particularly appreciate Gould’s second recording of the Goldberg Variations, as well as Haydn’s works and everything he recorded by Schoenberg.

Jacobsen: What were your earliest moments of rationalism and humanism?

Tabisz: In my childhood, as a ten-year-old, I had a strange dream, after which I woke up wondering that I was born in this particular time, in this particular country, as a human being and not, for example, as a butterfly or a dog. I don’t know if it was very rational, but then I gained some distance from “me”. I realized that the self is built by circumstance and also inherited. This also applies to faith. If I were born in China, would I have a father who would take me to church every Sunday hoping that I would gain the “grace of faith”? But it was not the question of atheism or theism that was most important in this early intuition. The most important thing was the distance I gained from this dreamlike feeling.

Jacobsen: How did you come to the polish rationalist community?

Tabisz: Thanks to the internet. Previously, I thought I was quite alone in my atheism and rationalism. Poles were very grateful to the Church for helping them fight the Soviet occupation. I was grateful too, but I began to realize that freedom had more than just a political dimension. However, before I found traces of Polish atheism and rationalism on the Internet, independent of communism, I thought that open atheism was expressed only by people collaborating with communism, and these were not attractive people to me. I was also a bit active in the opposition, I was too young to be more active, but my parents were very involved in the fight for freedom. Hence my father’s faithful attitude towards the Church.

Jacobsen: What have been your roles and responsibilities with the Polish Rationalist Association?

Tabisz: Now I have been vice president for several years. I was the president of this organization for many years, and I became president relatively soon after becoming a member. I wanted to act and had many ideas.

Jacobsen: What would you target as the major issues facing the rationalist discourse and public education in Poland?

Tabisz: These issues have changed. For example, we once fought for ethics lessons and an objective vision of Polish history in schools. Now the threats are different. Humanity is once again losing faith in the importance of freedom of speech, and new great ideologies are beginning to triumph in the world. Some of them seem beautiful, but in my opinion they are potentially criminal, just like Marx’s ideas. It is certainly worth fighting against relativistic postmodernism in favor of modernism and the popularization of science.

Jacobsen: What have been the major initiatives that you’ve seen as the most successful by the Polish Rationalist Association?

Tabisz: Certainly those concerning the popularization of access to ethics lessons or those aimed at expressing a rationalist worldview without fear. In terms of projects, what I like most is our interdisciplinary Darwin Days, co-organized with universities and the Polish Skeptics Club.

Jacobsen: Who have been major collaborators with the Polish Rationalist Association?

Tabisz: Among our main collaborators, I can mention the already mentioned Club of Polish Skeptics, but also universities in Wrocław, Warsaw and Poznań, as well as foundations and associations such as Freedom from Religion, Polish Humanists and many others.

Jacobsen: In British Columbia, where I live, there’s a significant non-religious population, but Langley, more precisely where I live, is known for not a huge religious population – only about half – but an intensely political religious population. They want fundamentalist theology exported into federal politics and culture. One study of the local private Evangelical University found the university theology became more and more fundamentalist as the surrounding culture and wider Canadian society became more liberalized and non-religious. Are there similar dynamics in Polish society?

Tabisz: For now, there is simply a broadly understood grassroots secularization taking place in Poland. It is difficult to say whether fundamentalist movements are growing against this background. There are some niche initiatives of this type, but it is difficult to say that there are more of them than ten years ago, when the secularization process was much less advanced.

Jacobsen: What has been the longest-standing issue in combating various irrationalities in Poland? One in the United States is fundamentalist preachers of an unprecedented sort in advanced industrial economies with educated populations. Prolific liars, charlatans, bombasts, or, simply, insane Bible interpreters either because of the Bible, innate craziness, or both. Some of this leaks over into this local area, but Canadian liberalism has been a buttress.

Tabisz: Maybe the too high status of priests, allowing some of them considerable impunity for abuses such as pedophilia or financial scams? In most cases, however, the problems change. Today, I am less afraid of an excess of Catholicism than of the already mentioned attacks on freedom of speech and rational thinking related to the culture of “wokeness” or political correctness.

Jacobsen: What have been the setbacks for the rationalist community in Poland?

Tabisz: Failures included numerous divisions after successes. As soon as we became famous, some members of the association separated from us and created a new entity. Almost half of Polish secular organizations sprouted from the Polish Rationalist Association. I experienced this quite strongly, especially when I was the president of the association and I was responsible for some of the successes, which on the one hand were great, but on the other, were the source of divisions.

Jacobsen: Where can people learn more about the humanist and rationalist communities in Poland? 

Tabisz: Well. I recently wrote a book called “New Humanism”, which, in addition to the philosophical layer, contains a guide to Polish and global humanistic and rationalist endeavors. For now, the book only exists in Polish. In addition, we have a website and we have left many traces on the Internet, not only in Polish.

Jacobsen: How can they support the efforts of those organizations? 

Tabisz: We have recently become a Public Benefit Organization and we also have Patronite. In addition, you can support us by coming to our debates, meetings and participating in our activities.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?

Tabisz: You have to see the changing world. For example, you cannot, like French secularists, fight against the Church, which basically no longer exists in France, without even noticing the hundreds of threats related to Islam. We cannot talk and write only about euthanasia and abortion without noticing the currently growing other threats to human freedom, often created by circles that were once our obvious allies. Neither allies nor enemies are eternal. However, reality is complex and you cannot be monothematic in your actions.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jacek. 

Tabisz: Thank You Scott!

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

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

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

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

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

Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube. Here we talk about as two friends, get yourself a smart friend too!

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the most difficult IQ test you have ever tried?

Rick Rosner: I forget the name of it but the deal is like there was a period when we first started talking and a few years before that where I was taking IQ tests on the regular, these super hard ones and kind of regularly spending over a period of a couple months or more; more than 100 hours on a test. And I was getting frustrated with this because it’s just a huge waste of time and then I ran into this test that seemed to be the hardest fucking test I’d ever seen and I forget the name of it, I could probably look it up but it was attractive to me because it had a super high ceiling that went into the 240s or something. Some of the Cooijman’s tests go into the 240s but nobody can ever reach those levels. I know from having taken a bunch of his tests; he’s pretty good at norming the tests and like I think historically a couple people have had happy accidents where maybe an early misnorming of the test allowed somebody to get close to or more than 200 on one of his tests but usually by the time enough people have taken the test… he’s one of the most legit high IQ test builders. So, there might be a test he has where you could score 240, 250 but you’re not going to get there because it’s just fucking impossible for humans.

But I saw this other test that had some like super high ceiling and I thought maybe it was worth a shot but I wanted to try an experiment; the two heads are better than one experiment, where I knew that back in the days when the mega was still in use, a team from MIT, several guys had teamed up and gotten a really high score on the test; just gang tackled it.  Of course they were disqualified once it was found that they were more than one guy but I thought that was an interesting strategy and so I wanted to try this test. I didn’t want to invest 200 hours in it. I wanted to still see if it was crackable via gang tackling it. So, I approached somebody I know who has a proven track record on these things and said, “Do you want to just take like a quick shot at this and see if two people working on a test can crack it faster?” So, we did it and it wasn’t super helpful because you’d hope that one person would find certain problems easier or that two different people would find different problems easier and together you’d be able to knock out a bunch of problems but that’s not the way fucking IQ tests work.

The easy problems were easy problems and you and whoever you’re working with are going to solve those quickly and then the hard problems are fucking hard and it’s going to take some messing around but anyway between the two of us we solved enough of the problems. We thought to submit answers to the guy and we built a name that was a combination of both our names and we sent it in and the guy writes back and all excited, “You got a really high score.” We got a score of that wasn’t a world record but it was like in the 180s or something and we go, “That’s great but you should know that we tried an experiment and we wondered if two people could track a super hard test” and the guy was heartbroken and traumatized. The guy I think is probably on the spectrum and this seemed like a monstrous violation of the social contract with him. We’re like “No, we weren’t trying to lie to you or anything, we just wanted to see.” Anyway, he was super sad and pissed and that test was so fucking hard that we were the only people who ever submitted answers to it because people would just take one look at it and go well this is fucking impossible.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] that’s fucking hilarious. 

Rosner: It was kind of a bad time all around.

Jacobsen: This reflects a lot of the personal history for you because you do things to break rules, then you’re like a sociopath of the conscience; you’re like a paradox. You do this all your life; this is your life. 

Rosner: Well, yeah I have some sociopathic tendencies.

Jacobsen: But then you feel guilty and then you tattle on yourself.

Rosner: Well, kind of, maybe yeah.

Jacobsen: You’ve had some interesting experiences, like your fake name incident where you confessed to Carole. You also wrote articles for the Mega Society, discussing your desire not to be perceived as racist, partly because of potential future repercussions. This seems to be a recurring theme in your actions.

Rosner: In the test scenario, we weren’t trying to deceive anyone for long. We always planned to reveal the truth. We were curious about the reaction if we submitted it as two people, though we ended up offending the recipient. This wasn’t like the Eric Hart situation.

Jacobsen: You’ve always been upfront, even when you had a significant following on Twitter. You admitted to buying followers.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: This honesty is a major aspect of your personality. It’s consistent across different areas of your life and in various relationships. It seems to be a key characteristic of yours.

Rosner: My high school friend, Dave Schuchter, summed it up well. He said there’s the right way, and then there’s the Rosner way.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s true. In our many-year working relationship, I’ve noticed that about you. It’s one reason I enjoy collaborating with you. You’re straightforward, you simplify complex ideas, and you have a grasp of both ordinary life and high-IQ circles. You’ve put yourself in diverse situations, from being a bouncer to a stripper and a nude model, to understand different perspectives. This unique approach has had both positive and negative consequences for you.

Rick Rosner: I have to give credit to Carol in all of this. We’ve been together since 1986, which is over 35 years now. I can imagine alternate paths my life could have taken, possibly with someone who might have been a bit impressed by my credentials. That could have made some aspects of life easier, like having someone who believed my stories without question. For instance, I remember this incident where a guy crashed into me outside a gym. He was clearly an actor trying to use his persuasive skills to gaslight me about the accident. I could tell he was pretending and later confirmed he was a minor actor. I imagined he had someone at home who believed in and supported his aspirations, no matter what.

Carol is quite the opposite. She challenges me; I really have to prove my points with her. She’s not easily swayed or impressed. Occasionally, we watch Jeopardy, and I might answer a question that no one else gets, but Carol’s reaction is often subdued. She knows my knowledge in trivia and quizzes has led us into some less-than-ideal situations. So with Carol, I don’t get any praise that I haven’t truly earned, which can be frustrating. I used to fantasize about having a partner who was overly impressed with my intelligence, rewarding me for it in extravagant ways. But in reality, that wouldn’t have been beneficial for personal growth.

In recent years, especially since I started receiving my pension, Carol has been more tolerant of my quirks. She allows me a bit more leeway now that there’s financial stability, regardless of my productivity.

Jacobsen: In the high IQ world, do you think most people believe their publicly listed IQs accurately reflect their true intelligence?

Rosner: It’s hard to say for everyone, but I can share some unique cases. There’s Mike from Florida, who regularly contacted me, insisting he should be admitted to the Mega Society. He believed a childhood accident impaired his true intellectual potential. Then there’s the individual who sued Kevin Langdon, claiming IQ testing was akin to unlicensed mental therapy. These are extreme cases, of course. More commonly, you have people like Chris, who views high IQ as a potential indicator of untapped talent rather than a definitive measure of intelligence.

Jacobsen: Are you referring to Chris C.?

Rosner: Yes, but let’s not use his full name. He prefers a more discreet association with the IQ community. He recognizes that high IQ can identify potential but is cautious about the more controversial aspects of IQ.

Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on these ‘icky messy aspects’ of IQ?

Rosner: Well, the high IQ community often deals with contentious issues like the implications of IQ in societal and personal contexts. There’s a fine line between using IQ as a tool for identifying talent and it becoming a source of unjustified elitism or a way to unfairly judge others. It’s a complex field with both beneficial and problematic aspects.

Rosner: The fields of statistics and intelligence measurement, which have developed together over the last century, are unfortunately intertwined with racism. Historically, you couldn’t delve into these areas without encountering racism, especially from the 1930s to the 1970s. For instance, Pearson, known for the correlation coefficient, is accused of being racist. Many early IQ tests and statistical analyses were conducted with the intent to prove the superiority of one race over others, which is deeply problematic. These assumptions were often flawed, as seen in early army IQ tests that included culturally biased questions. The most abhorrent aspect of this is eugenics, where such data was used to justify sterilization or worse.

Jacobsen: In your experience, who’s the smartest person you’ve ever encountered?

Rosner: Chris, whom we mentioned earlier, is incredibly intelligent in a subtle way. Then there’s Jimmy Kimmel and his family. They’re not just highly intelligent; they’re also remarkably well-adjusted, which is rare. Another person who stands out is Bill Simmons. He’s a brilliant sports writer who was one of the first to recognize and cater to an audience interested in various aspects of pop culture, not just sports. He successfully integrated this into his writing, creating a media empire with projects like HBO’s ’30 for 30′. He’s incredibly smart and has a broad range of normal interests.

To a large extent, having normal interests can often overshadow one’s intelligence in the public eye. This was the case with Bill Simmons and the Kimmels, particularly Jimmy. For instance, in ‘The Man Show’, which Jimmy co-hosted, the program ended each episode with them drinking beer. The majority of the audience probably saw it as a show featuring guys being guys, with girls on trampolines, rather than a show hosted by two geniuses. Adam Corolla, the co-host, is also highly intelligent.

Jacobsen: Their approach to the show was essentially to satirize typical male obsessions.

Rosner: Yes, it was quite tongue-in-cheek, aiming to entertain men with its fun and slightly risqué content. At the same time, it was meant to appeal to women by highlighting the absurdity of male and, to some extent, female behavior. It was a commentary on gender roles but so embedded in gender stereotypes that many viewers might not have seen it that way.

I believe Adam and Jimmy left the show because they were being shortchanged by the production company and had more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. They left after four seasons, and the show’s fifth season, led by Joe Rogan and Doug Stanhope, missed the original essence and leaned more towards misogyny. The early seasons of ‘The Man Show’, under Jimmy and Adam, had a certain subtle genius. Jimmy, in particular, is an incredibly smart individual who genuinely enjoys interacting with people. Among late-night hosts, he probably enjoys the company and laughter of his guests more than anyone else. Letterman, while a genius in the medium, often came across as somewhat irritable and less enthusiastic about the interaction.

In my experience, I’ve encountered some incredibly smart people. Jimmy’s brother Jonathan, for instance, is an excellent librettist, showcasing his intellect in the realm of musical theater. Their whole family has this streak of unique intelligence. For example, Jimmy’s grandfather once sculpted ‘The Last Supper’ out of modeling clay using muppets, just because he felt like it. It’s an extraordinary family trait. Then there’s Uncle Frank, whom Jimmy adored, primarily because he always provided genuine, straightforward reactions, despite not being particularly bright.

Jacobsen: Who’s the least intelligent person you’ve ever met?

Rosner: It’s challenging to pinpoint the ‘dumbest’ person because intelligence varies so much, and it’s not always about sheer cognitive ability. For example, while volunteering with developmentally disabled individuals, I met a person named Keith, reported to have an IQ of 25. Yet, even Keith showed signs of practical intelligence, understanding the concept of reward for actions like going to the restroom. Another individual, despite significant communication challenges, demonstrated surprising knowledge by correctly identifying and spelling ‘metallic’ in reference to my jacket. This encounter was particularly striking because it defied my expectations.

I also remember driving a van with one of the individuals from the group home who had a remarkable understanding of the vehicle’s mechanics. In that house, there was also Alonzo Clemens, a savant with an incredible ability to sculpt animals from memory, capturing every detail accurately. These experiences have led me to question the notion of ‘essential dumbness’ in people.

In bars, I’ve encountered some pretty uninformed or unwise individuals, but no one specifically stands out as the least intelligent. I do recall meeting someone who could vomit easily, which is unusual because for most people, including myself, vomiting is a strenuous and exhausting process. But this person seemed to do it with little to no effort, which was quite memorable in its own right.

I recall meeting a person who, oddly enough, was the easiest at vomiting that I’ve ever encountered. He was an alcoholic, and due to his frequent drinking to the point of sickness, he had become accustomed to vomiting. One time, as we were conversing, he casually turned his head, vomited effortlessly onto the floor, and then continued his sentence as if nothing had happened. While I can’t say who the least intelligent person I’ve met is, I certainly remember this guy as the one who could vomit the easiest.

Jacobsen: Who is the most virtuous person you’ve met?

Rosner: That’s a tough one! Public school teachers come to mind. Now, some enter the profession seeking an easier job, but teaching is actually quite demanding. I remember back in 1986 in Albuquerque, teachers were paid poorly, around two thousand dollars a month. Despite this, there were teachers who were genuinely passionate and committed. They loved teaching, were skilled at it, enjoyed interacting with students, and genuinely wanted to improve their students’ knowledge and lives. People like Mr. Talamonti, Mr. Ragosa, Mrs. Light, and Mrs. Goldner – these teachers, to me, embody a kind of saintliness. Of course, this is just an immediate thought; given more time, I might think of others.

Jacobsen: Who’s the most morally questionable person you’ve known or met?

Rosner: I haven’t really known truly evil people, more like individuals who were simply unpleasant or took shortcuts in life. My stepdad’s mother, though, might fit the description if all the stories about her are accurate. She was described as mean and vindictive to a soap opera level. She apparently brought a lot of unhappiness into my stepdad’s and mom’s lives with her relentless and spiteful behavior. However, I only interacted with her superficially and knew about her nastiness secondhand and thirdhand. She never directly mistreated me, so my understanding of her character comes from others’ experiences.

Then there was Randy Stevenson, a bar manager where I worked. He was quite a character, notorious for his questionable actions. He once fired me for missing a meeting that I actually attended. The issue was that I was too efficient at catching fake IDs, which was costing the bar money – they paid $10 for each one caught, and I was exceptionally good at it. Stevenson seemed to have grown tired of this and sought a reason to let me go.

Another person who irks me is Michael Davies, currently the producer of Jeopardy, but also involved with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. I had an unpleasant experience with him which led to a lawsuit. The show asked me a flawed question, and despite their assurances of rectifying the mistake, they repeatedly failed to do so. Although these individuals aren’t necessarily evil, they show a certain laziness in doing the right thing. Stevenson, for instance, despite having a pregnant girlfriend at home, was involved with waitresses at the bar where he worked. It’s more about everyday irresponsibility than outright malevolence.

Jacobsen: As we wrap up, who would you say is the hardest working person you’ve ever met?

Rosner: Well, Jimmy Kimmel certainly comes to mind. He’s incredibly dedicated and hardworking. I, too, can be extremely hardworking, especially when I’m in a phase of intense focus. And then there’s you – you are remarkably hardworking. You’re currently managing 110-hour weeks, and I know you’ve juggled multiple jobs simultaneously. Your writing output is astounding. You’ve likely written millions of words over the years – averaging around two articles a day for various publications. If you did the math, it would probably reveal that you’ve produced the equivalent of over a hundred substantial books throughout your career. That’s a testament to your incredible work ethic and dedication.

Kimmel has been incredibly hardworking, especially in the early days of his Late Night Show. He was so dedicated that he would often get only about four hours of sleep a night, managing around 500 emails daily. This intense schedule led to him being extremely tired, and he initially thought he had narcolepsy. It turns out it was more due to his heavy workload, which he jokingly referred to as ‘getting four hours of sleep at night answering 500 emails a day-elepsy.’ To combat this, he was taking a medication, possibly Adderall, which was prescribed for what he believed was narcolepsy. Eventually, someone, likely Molly, his head writer and now wife, had to convince him to stop taking it.

Kimmel’s intelligence, focus, and attention to detail are remarkable. He has a keen eye for the quality of content on his show, and he particularly enjoys it when the audience is completely fooled by a fake news story, thinking it to be real. For instance, during the Sochi Olympics, he aired a segment with a wolf supposedly wandering the halls of the Olympic athletes’ hotel. This story went viral, with many people believing it to be true, which delighted Kimmel.

One notable example of his meticulous nature involved a voice-over (VO) for a segment. He could discern that the person doing the VO was standing instead of sitting, which didn’t match the video content. He insisted on it being redone with the person sitting down to make it sound more authentic. His ability to notice such minute details and his insistence on perfection, especially when enhanced by the focus brought on by Adderall, show his exceptional dedication to creating the best possible content for his show.

Jimmy Kimmel doesn’t receive enough recognition for his significant impact on Late Night TV. While perhaps not as transformative as David Letterman, who revitalized a genre that had been stagnant under Johnny Carson for 30 years, Kimmel has certainly made his mark. Besides Letterman and possibly Steve Allen, who originally crafted the Late Night format, Kimmel has significantly altered the landscape of Late Night television. However, he often doesn’t get the credit he deserves, partly because he is one of several “Jimmys” in the Late Night scene.

Regarding my appearance on “Moment of Zen” when Jon Stewart hosted “The Daily Show,” yes, that was after my loss on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” which I subsequently sued. My job with Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t a result of that incident. In fact, Kimmel, being the mensch that he is, helped me get hired at ABC, the network I was suing. He believed my partner and I could contribute effectively to “The Late Night Show,” based on our previous work on “Crank Yankers” and “The Man Show.”

As for Jon Stewart, my involvement with him was somewhat separate. Before my “Moment of Zen” appearance, I wrote for one of the Grammy shows he hosted, contributing jokes and other content. It’s a small world in this industry; Jimmy’s agent is also Jon Stewart’s and Carson Daly’s agent, and was somewhat my agent too, though my role in the industry is relatively minor compared to these big names.

Make grammatically correct, remove time stamps, keep the content, facts, rambly tone, keep word count, but formalize language structure while keeping the informality of language tone and style and maintain as close as possible the resulting word count of the original:

Jacobsen: When I was trying to get the interview with you originally, you were working with Jimmy Kimmel. Then I got the interview because you informed me that you lost your job. Then we started working together. What is that period between first request and not accepting and second request and accepted?

Rosner: That period was filled with dread and cautious optimism that really was extinguished by more dread because I kind of semi realized that some people might be legendary in the field of Late Night; Dino Stamatopoulos, I don’t  know, I  mean there are people who are well known in the field of late Night for being brilliant. It’s not one of those people. It probably helps if you come from stand-up or some other way that people can see. I was kind of known for just being borderline which is not entirely fair, I was perfectly adequate but I was sold as… I don’t want to go into the whole fucking thing but even though I was fine, I wasn’t like shiningly brilliant. I’m really good at the shit but I wouldn’t be a starter if late night writing were the NBA.  I’d be a seventh or an eighth man. I’d come in towards the end of the first quarter to spell the starters. So, I’m still fucking elite, I’m still one of the top few hundred comedy writers in the country but I’m not in the top you know 50 most brilliant motherfuckers.

So, I didn’t get hired for any fucking thing and people wanted me to write a spec script and I didn’t want to fucking do that. So, I was hopeful that maybe something would come up but it’s been eight years and something is still possibly coming up but it’s been fucking eight years.

In our discussions, we’ve touched on the tendency of high IQ personalities to dive into obsessive rabbit holes. Currently, I find myself deeply engaged in the world of micro mosaics. Carol, my wife, has a fondness for them, and I’ve grown quite passionate about acquiring and restoring these intricate pieces. I often find pieces that, due to damage or neglect, are available at a fraction of their pristine value. I invest many hours meticulously restoring them to the best of my ability, and the results are usually quite pleasing. Carol then showcases them on her Instagram.

Carol’s mother, who is experiencing early memory loss and has a penchant for arts and crafts, seemed like she might enjoy mosaic-making. So, we’ve been collaboratively working on mosaic projects. We’ve completed a boxer dog mosaic and are now working on a cat, which is based on a photograph and is quite realistic. I’ve become somewhat obsessed with executing this cat mosaic kit to the highest possible standard. When I visit Carol’s mom, we work on the simpler parts of the mosaic together, but I handle the more intricate work. This involves filing down tiles to precise sizes, sometimes as small as a millimeter square, which often results in me filing away the top layer of skin on my fingers.

I’ve devoted an extraordinary amount of time—perhaps 30 to 50 hours—and we’re only about halfway through this project. The mosaic is turning out impressively well for a DIY kit meant for kids or extremely bored adults. But this raises the question: why am I so fixated on getting every tiny detail perfect on this relatively trivial project? It’s an illustration of the kind of obsessive focus that can characterize individuals with high IQs, sometimes leading them to pour excessive energy into tasks with limited practical outcomes.

Jacobsen: What do you think about people who score higher on these tests than you?

Rosner: I don’t know, they’re doing the same…

Jacobsen: People like Evangelos.

Rosner: I think they worked hard and they also got lucky that they found a test that would allow them to score higher. I’m always looking for that test and a couple times I’ve gotten lucky and found a test that had like a high enough ceiling and that meshed with my patience and abilities and I was able to crank out a score in the 190s. It’s the same with them; they found a test that may have been in its early version. Generally with tests, the norms start out high like somebody thinks this is a test that can measure up to an IQ of 210 and so you take the test and you do really well and you might get a score back in the 180s or 190s because you’re one of the first 12 people who took it and then another 20 people take it and the test is renormed and maybe the score you got gets lowered by three points or so because the creator of the test if that creator is being honest, he sees that people are getting scores that are higher than you’d expect based on their performance on other tests. So, he renorms the test and that 193 you got gets lowered down to a 190 after a year or when another 20 couple dozen people have taken the test. It’s all the roughly the same deal.  It’s people who are good at this shit and who have the patience to do it take a test and they put in the necessary effort and ingenuity and they get a really high score.

They’re psychologically, I don’t know, you’ve talked to Evangelos. I assume that he doesn’t wear desperation on his sleeve that he’s a smart guy who enjoys puzzles and he’s like “I’ll take this on. I’ll spend like an hour a day on it for three months and we’ll and see where it takes me in terms of getting correct answers” I assume he’s a reasonable guy, I don’t know. I mean he’s a professional psychiatrist and stuff. So I assume he’s got a whole life where he might be approaching IQ tests as a pleasurable hobby rather than an obsession. So, maybe other people have scored high on these tests. I know like there was recently that Cooijman’s high IQ competition where I took third and whatshisface took first.

Jacobsen: Heinrich Siemens took first. However, he scored 195 on the first norming; and on the later norming it went down to 190. 

Rosner: So, I was talking about that norms generally declined by a few points but Heinrich Siemens, a reasonable guy with I’m sure some kind of complete life; a family and job and all that shit, I believe started on this test, he picked it up like five years ago and worked on it for a while and then set it aside because “Eh, it’s a fucking IQ test.” And then this IQ contest is announced with a deadline using this test like if you could turn in the answers to this test by I think the end of like 2020 like December 31st or some shit last year; now he’s got a deadline. He’s like “well huh, it’s a contest and I’d already worked on this test five years ago. I should take another look at it.” So, five years ago he’d probably put in 50 hours and solved 60 percent of the problems. Now he sees it’s a contest, he’s got three months to see how much farther he can go. He solves the remaining 40 percent of the problems and he solves half of them, turns it in and wins the contest, gets a super high score.

You’ve interviewed us both at the same time or back and forth and seem like a very reasonable person and he just did what a reasonable super smart person who likes puzzles would do. He fucking picked it up, messed with it, put it down, came back to it when he had a reason to do it like he thought he could do well in this contest, messed with it some more to a reasonable extent I think, probably didn’t go crazy and just put in another 50-60 hours on it over three months which is averaging less than an hour a day like a healthy person would, and did well.

Jacobsen: How does the Mega Society hold significance for you?

Rosner: My introduction to the Mega Society dates back to around 1985 or 1986. At that time, my perspective was somewhat skewed, primarily focused on whether this could aid in my romantic endeavors. I came across an extremely challenging IQ test – previously, I had achieved notable scores on another such test, the Kevin Langdon test, which I believe was featured in Omni magazine, likely around 1980. I attempted this test, and my performance ranked me second among those who had taken it when it appeared in Omni. This nearly led to a television appearance, but I inadvertently sabotaged that opportunity by presenting myself unfavorably to the talent scout for a CBS morning show, a misstep I regret.

Initially, my interest in the Mega Society was driven by a hope that it might increase my chances of finding a romantic partner. I entertained the notion of meeting Marilyn Savant, imagining that my physical fitness and intelligence might appeal to her. I reached out to her, inquiring about joining the Mega Society and suggesting a date, but she declined my membership request and didn’t address the latter proposition.

Apart from these personal aspirations, the Mega Society has had a significant impact on my life. I met Chris through this association, who played a pivotal role in encouraging me to take on the role of editor for the Mega Society Journal. This period marked a positive shift in my life; I became more focused and responsible. Concurrently, I began to find success in television writing, a career that spanned from 1987 to around 2013 or 2014. My involvement with the Mega Society coincided with and contributed to this professional growth.

In conclusion, the Mega Society represents not just a personal journey of maturation and professional achievement, but also the value of connecting with like-minded individuals, something I admittedly could be more diligent about maintaining.

Jacobsen: What are Chris’s thoughts, as a professional physicist, on Informational Cosmology (IC)?

Rosner: Chris likely adopts a demographic or statistical perspective on IC. He probably acknowledges that there might be some merit to it, but realistically, the odds are not in its favor, considering historical precedents. Most individuals who propose independent theories in this field haven’t made significant breakthroughs. There are only a few exceptions like Newton with universal gravitation, Einstein with general and special relativity, and to some extent, either Gamow or his partner, who significantly advanced the Big Bang theory. Typically, those working alone in this area are seen as somewhat eccentric.

He’s aware of my intelligence, of course, but he remains optimistic yet skeptical about my work. He understands the ease with which one can veer into fanciful or unfounded theories. This discussion might be better suited for another session, as we have been conversing for quite some time now.

In a future discussion, I’d like to delve into the possibility that the true nature of quantum mechanics has been largely overlooked. My hypothesis is that quantum mechanics represents the mathematics and physics of incomplete information. The true focus of this information might have been missed by many. As I mentioned in our previous conversation, by the time information theory emerged, the mathematical framework and a substantial amount of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics were already well-established.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.