Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 12

Issue Numbering: 1

Section: A

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 29

Formal Sub-Theme: None.

Individual Publication Date: October 1, 2023

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2024

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Word Count: 39,291

Image Credit: None.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

Abstract

Mattanaw, formerly “Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh,” earned a B.S. in Computer & Information Science and a B.S. in Psychology from the University of Maryland, and is working towards a Masters of Business & Economics from Harvard University. He is a former Chief Architect fopr Adobe Systems and the Current President/Advisor & Chief Scientist for Social Architects and Economists International. What follows is the single longest interview submission to date, I think, with the second-longest from Hindemburg Melão Jr., Mattanaw discusses: intelligence tests; scaling intelligence; learning more about intelligence and intelligent people; pathways in life; patterns of behaviour of the high range; personal development and understanding oneself; Mensa membership and its value; areas of reading; historical figures; evaluating those historical figures; self-protection; and a concluding response. 

Keywords: computer science, information science, Harvard University, IQ, Mattanaw, psychology, psychometrics, significance and velocity of ideas, Social Architects and Economists International.

Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People

Opening Response

The informal method utilizing significance and velocity of ideas is not only applicable for utility comparing living people, it has some utility for understanding historical figures, through an analysis of their productive works, converted into analytical tools like AI and machine learning. Because it is useful for living and historical figures, it is universally applicable to all humans. Taking what people are able to do in their higher quality analyses of conversations, one can make a software system emulating the skills of the conversation evaluator. This has not been accomplished but is incipient, and the author expects this to eventually occur. ChatGPT shows some promising usefulness I hear, although I don’t use it. A manual informal description is required before there is an automation substitute. This is based on long experience guiding corporations who are often interested in replacing workers with systems performing the same jobs. However, historical finished productions are edited, and the time to completion is unknown; which just means that historical works that are complete and growth is often unknown because revision histories are lost. This is highly relevant to the analysis but it does not mean that no analysis can occur on only the results of thinking people.In my work I’m interested in both quality of finished products and growths of learning in brains and resulting changes in productions over time. More will be said below regarding this concerning the question of historical figures, especially as it relates to dissertative thinking and velocities of significance and ideation, and change deltas.

The informal method mentioned is described in passing as the related topics are developed. Instead of explaining this concept in depth out of context, it is explained gradually in context, where there are many examples to be shared, in relation to the interesting questions posed by Mr. Jacobsen.

Questions concerning the well being and interests of Highly Intelligent figures is also related to this method, that is used separately as a method for appraising quality of thought and output. This includes the question as to why some highly intelligent people appear to be unproductive. Lack of productivity is a sign that there are certain other parts of the nervous system that may not be as sophisticated as the intelligence of the individual, but since there are many ways to produce recordings, executive function is questioned if one has been unable to become productive somehow. Consider that the extent of the planning of my work and software and skill acquisitions of computer programming, software design, typing, and a huge array of other skills was required to create a total usable system for conveying significance fast. Conversation is not only verbally performed, of course, but is also written, and is present in artworks. If there is an excessively lopsided difference between claimed intellectual prowess and productions, meaning there is a low velocity of significant ideas in recordings, it too is an indication that if there are not other debilitating issues preventing production, the claims of extreme giftedness are at least partly fraudulent. There would have to be very strong reasons provided for remaining inactive having gifts, wanting less feedback on behavior, and no claim can be made that only thinking provides all the feedback needed, because I can make the claim that happens to be true, that I can do the same, and yet no mind is so powerful as to not require environmental feedback from sophisticated thinking. Otherwise the smartest of all children need not do anything in a very short time. In the High Intelligence community there are many variations in intelligence, and one is expected to have gradations and selectivity in fraud, to fill gaps, and to present strengths as greater than they are. Great unproductivity is a decrease in the total velocity of total communicativeness of significant ideas. Whereas, those who are extremely productive “omnichannel”, meaning on all communicative channels available, they are more likely to be extremely gifted. This accounts for our expectation that highly gifted individuals producing masterworks of various kinds, and large contributions of written materials, really were extremely gifted. However, it is possible for Highly Intelligent people, to be “locked up” in their minds, having other deficiencies related to communication, including disease or difficulty with motor systems, making it hard to create works worth retaining and sharing. This topic relates to claims of “genius”, a word I’ll keep saying I dislike when I have to mention it. If there is no evidence of great productions and works, in their various ways of appearing in life, in work careers and in books and writing, then there is no “genius”, particularly if the person has no illness or deficiency like those mentioned above, which would cause us to want to look further into why their mind cannot result in actions evidencing in a non-lopsided way, the quality of their minds. Without any illness, it appears they are lacking communication skills directly related to their minds, which would low velocity of significant ideas in conversation too. If one can speak, or sign, with great velocity and significance of ideas, unhindered, then one is providing “potential recordings” that would provide evidence if there were not other physical or nervous obstacles to make those recordings. People of high repute in the academic community can and have dictated incredibly high quality materials showing obviously the quality of their minds. Bertrand Russell, using an anecdote, would think about his work until he had a clarity he liked enough to simply dictate it to his secretary who would type it. I use an alternative strategy I think is superior, but that strategy does seem to indicate the plausibility of this possibility. One can be very powerful in dictation. But there are highly intelligent people who do lose their speech too, from strokes or other health events. These considerations make it plain that communication is a vitally important component in determining if someone is really intelligent or not, and these together support the view that an informal method of using communication to appraise velocity and significance of ideas is of good utility for determining if someone is extremely gifted, in the highest ranges. In the worst case, it can be used to determine if some are frauds. Charlatans do exist and they do not fare well on this informal measure. In the future they will be detected automatically, as finally, this informal method and skill is built into software systems that can do the same work that a highly intelligent mind auditor can do.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

*Question 1: The most legitimate intelligence test scores tend to come from comprehensive tests with money and research dumped at them, e.g., the SB and the WAIS. Yet, their ranges are fairly tight around 40/45 to 160/155 on S.D. 15. Some statistical, psychometric techniques, e.g., Rasch-equated, have been employed by individual experimental psychologists, e.g., Dr. Xavier Jouve, to extrapolate for claimed scores at 175 S.D. 15, for example. Alternative tests made by independent test constructors are interesting and vary in quality, though have a far larger quantity. In the article, bluntly, you state, “140,150,160,170,180 are the numbers immediately grasped by liars and exaggerators.” When using alternative tests, more than the first test attempt to claim a score at 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180, what are first thoughts coming to mind to you?

Opening Response for Answer One

Before moving on to my answering of the main question, I want to handle the following embedded concern about a portion of my referenced article: ‘In the article, bluntly, you state, “140,150,160,170,180 are the numbers immediately grasped by liars and exaggerators.”’ The cause for this particular statement, which is strictly true, and something I’ve experienced many times, is that people recall what a high score happens to be from their cultural recollections, and falsely self-attribute those same scores, which are round numbers. These are easier to recall than say, 97, which may figure into the statement “My intelligence score is 97”. To provide a high example, we hear that some historical figure has an IQ of 160 over and over, and that another has 180. These are fabrications because of a lack of actual test scores for historical figures and their supporters acting as information marketers, who are the causes of these messages. These are applied to historical figures to mean that they are “geniuses”, although few in the public really understand what these numbers mean, or how high those scores really are, and whether or not these figures are really as smart as those numbers indicate. They later recall these numbers more easily and then, when they falsely pretend a score for themselves, they choose those same numbers. I’ve heard this so many times from fraudulent claimers boasting about their “smarts” having no idea of psychometrics that I’m certain this is the explanation. My father has done this before choosing the score of 160, and while he is moderately intelligent, he has no idea what is IQ is. He simply grabbed what he heard Einstein’s IQ was, which of course is also false, and again, people chose that number, because they heard that is what a geniuses score would be, but they have no information about Einstein’s testing. There is an additional reason, however, which should be more obvious, and it is this. It is unlikely that if a person has a particular test taken, that their score will be a round number such as this. Suppose one has really scored in the 160s, but hasn’t had their score revealed to them. There is only a 1/10th chance that their score is 160, and not 161-169 (disincluding the diminishing probability of the intelligence increasing from 160 to 169. In that case I could choose another range, say, from 156 to 165 and say again, that the person scored is somewhere in this range but doesn’t know what the score is. In that case the more probable score is either 155, 156, 157, 158, or 159). The same is true for any of the other sets, 140-149, 150-159, 160-169, &c (also disincluding the diminishing probabilities of the higher numbers individually). The propensity to choose a round number combined with the rarity that it would be a round number, and the rarity of even having that score, combines to indicate that the person simply stating their IQ simply doesn’t have that score. If someone says they have an IQ of 200, it’s even more of a round number. Why did you not tell me it is 223, and not 200? The use of the round number is an indication that someone is lying regarding their IQ, and if they are that intelligent they would have the awareness to present a percentile figure and not an IQ score in any case. I’ve noticed this time and again in the misattribution of IQ scores to untested historical figures, living actors, and to people themselves who are simply trying to tell others that they are “geniuses” but of course, they have not been tested at all.

Relating this to the detection of scammers, a question later in the interview, I would immediately utilize unproductivity as a “red flag” that they are really lying. But I don’t require that it be a red flag either, because from conversation, I already know they are lying.

What is great about the informal evaluation method using velocity of significance and ideation is that one more quickly knows that my father was incorrect by listening to him. It has general application and immediately reveals one has a score that is not profoundly intelligent, and while it is usable for estimating anyone to a degree, obviously without psychometrical precision, it is more easily used by an immeasurably gifted person to see another is not immeasurably gifted.

The remainder of the question is handled extensively below.

The General Plausibility of Scaling Intelligence, and Our Unfortunate Inability to Create Tests That Can Rank Measure It for the Immeasurable

There are very difficult norming requirements for tests exceeding the range of the Stanford-Binet and Wechlser, meaning that a very large sample pool of test participants must make themselves available in order to validate the test scoring, and ranking with the general population. This is applicable in two ways: firstly, the maximum one can score is approximately or equal to the 99.997^th percentile on the total test, that is comprised of subtests that themselves have maximum IQ scores at the 99.89^th percentile. One can reach the limit by getting maximum scores on subtests or the total test, which would also mean, that the maximums were reached for subtests only at the 99.89^th percentile. I don’t think this limitation has been overcome except for some tests that are not themselves IQ tests, but academic tests, that supposedly correlate well to IQ tests. These tests, the academic ones, do have some credibility to me, for establishing higher capabilities. Especially the Miller Analogies Test, although that test is not culture-fair, and has some definite limitations for testing people not very well exposed to culture in the English language. It also has a deficiency in that it is verbal focused and relates mostly to specific subtests that on IQ tests have a ceiling at the 99.89^th percentile, making correlation to FSIQ a confusing issue. It correlates more directly to verbal subtests and extrapolation would be required to really understand the relationship between MAT scores that are higher, subtests that ceiling at the 99.89^th percentil, and FSQI that is higher but utilizes subtests from the visual domain. It cannot be used to provide a raw IQ score, in the same way as a true IQ testcan, but is purported to able to provide rank differentiation at a higher level, of 8 Standard Deviations, as published by Pearson. That would be an IQ of 300, at SD25, and a rarity into the billions. Later I will discuss this test in more detail, and will share some critical flaws, other than those already mentioned. This test is well normed from my understanding, meaning many test takers have used it with results being processed, using participants as human experimental subjects without disclosure (like the SAT), making bell-curve distribution possible, but someplace between 3 and 8 standard deviations there is definitely a norming issue, due to lack of test takers to establish rarity. Billions of people have not taken the test. That means after somewhere between the 99.89^thpercentile and IQ 300 territory meaningful comparisons between participants regarding IQ will be harder to justify.

Scaling of the MAT appears to have some meaningfulness because the method of scaling appears to have uniform growth characteristics–the test is only comprised of analogies so more analogies are simply added, and those who can answer more, have scaled past other test-takers who simply couldn’t answer as many questions. I have related the scaling of the test to scaling of a chess-board which can begin as a 2×2 matrix with a few pieces, to any larger matrix, not only an 8×8 matrix as it currently is. The game would become increasingly harder to solve as the board increases in size, and the current size is fun because it offers a level of challengingness that many enjoy, but is not so complicated as to make it unfun to play, when out of the range of comprehensibility. Chess is already incomprehensible at an 8×8 matrix for much of the population. This example would be like the scaling of a visual problem solving matrix on visual portions of IQ tests, and one wonders how the MAT could relate given it is not visual. But the purpose of the illustration is to convey the scaling idea. Problems on the IQ test all scale in complexity until participants are unable to answer questions on all subtests that vary, and eventually one runs out of questions if one is very talented in a specific domain, although some subtests resemble complete IQ tests on their own, and for these tests I have maximum scores, both verbal and visuospatial.

An interesting challenge to the MAT test is why it scales to 8 standard deviations at all, and why not 12, or 14, or more? Why not scale it like a chess board to infinity? What is the purpose of scaling the test to an IQ correlate of 300 if no one on the planet can come close to scoring that high, and nobody does come close.

The way the MAT test is scaled is by including a very large set of analogies making conceptual comparisons using words that are simple to understand, providing some easy answers, scaling those until they are rare and challenging, like a vocabulary exam, and also by increasing the complexity of the comparisons that are demanding on culture dependent factual knowledge, that one must understand well or the comparisons might be unsuccessful. The set is huge so it exceeds what people can remember as far as concepts, and what they could learn relating to potential studies and experiential learning. But at 8 standard deviations there is some cause for the largeness of the analogy set, which is big enough to make it impossible for people to score well on, with all but one person scoring at 6 SDs, which would correlate to an IQ of over 250, although I question that correlation for lack of data and a range of other reasons. But that means nobody but one person has scored between 6 and 8 standard deviations and that person barely scored over 6 SDs. This means nearly zero people have scored that high, yet the test is claimed to score that high.

Would it discredit the test if more analogies in other languages were utilized, or all languages in which we have sufficient conceptual knowledge, to account for the linguists who obtained knowledge who would also like to be tested, making it culture-fair, by including all of them? Why not scale it more, or replace concepts with interlingual concepts. The effect of the culture-unfair nature of this test is that not all concepts someone might know would be in the test pool, including not only concepts of other languages that are unique and asynonmyous, but concepts in specific fields that are not covered. I have extensive understanding of concepts that I can clearly see from experience are entirely disincluded from the test and it appears this relates to the manner in which Pearson has aggregated concepts.

What of the ethics of including all the concepts of immigrant minds versus not? What are the ramifications for those in the highest range who cross over national and linguistic boundaries? Why not include all concepts that exist!? If such a test were created, probably the range would be some large number over 20 Standard Deviations, and would be impossible for earthlings into the distant future. This would be like the chess board that has grown to a 160×160 matrix with many more pieces, being figurative. But would that debunk the test, for testing impossible giftedness? Already that is what it does, and it does this by testing for concepts that no-one learns or wants to learn too, out of differential interest that does relate to effectiveness in life, and moral self-guidance as to values of study. It tests for concepts that exist in the history of clothing for example, something I’m not too interested in despite enjoying fashion, for knowing with executive function what to omit from my life in order to pursue excellences. Areas of music and so on that seem to be of popular musicology are also included, but one can be very wise to eliminate that as a detailed study in one’s life too. Interests management is important to overcome procrastination, and while some are interested in textiles, like kinds of hats, and musicologists may be interested in older styles of music and their history, one is smart to omit whatever one is not interested in to pursue real life objectives and this conflicts with testing for these things. What the intelligent person omits from life is veryimportant.

If foreign language concepts were added, they would be as unlearned in the general population as concepts from other languages. This might be interesting for those committed to the learning of other languages thinking it provides evidence of intelligence.

It should be mentioned that this test appears to be one easily released by Pearson, because they have a pool of concepts from textbooks that appear in glossaries and the like, and all it takes is the formation of combinations of concepts from this data set to create a pool large enough to support the simple tests they create and publish. The cause of the selectivity of concepts requires justification that I think does not exist, and instead, the focus is on inclusiveness in the English language what Pearson happened to aggregate.

Pearson can have a good earning revenue even if they don’t believe in the test and it it is true that it doesn’t have extremely widespread application, not being a choice test for college admissions. The ease of release relates to the ease of earning despite having a somewhat low number of test takers compared with the SAT.

At one point having fun with MAT study guides that actually makes a good source of study of human knowledge because it covers so many area categories, I created a system of a combination of a hierarchical directory tree, with spreadsheet data nodes, making a sort of database containing structured MAT data that had Pearson concepts in it from study guides, and any concepts I would add. But after a period of enjoying learning with this method, I realized I didn’t care about learning concepts about clothing, and certain cultural areas in which there isn’t sufficient cause justification for the time expenditure, which again, limits the executive function component of the test. I noticed at that time however, I could think of other categories of understanding that were disincluded, like medical and technology concepts. For example, having been exposed in youth to the Merk Manual, I knew definitely many concepts in that text were not in Pearson’s pool of concepts and that could be because Pearson publishing does not issue that text, and therefore doesn’t have those concepts in the test pool. To me this reduced chances that if I took the MAT I would be unable to exhibit my full potential, and it does mean there is favoritism regarding interests in test subjects.

The MAT is a relatively risk free test to take and one can be examined by it without any of the side effects of an IQ test, because one simply doesn’t care if one scores poorly and all do, considering the relationship to what a 100% score would be. This is another interesting limitation on the test because one feels like the results are somehow inapplicable for not mattering. This is only partly the case, since I still think there is some correlative validity, relating to the propensity of highly intelligent people to master concepts fast, coming from those in which they were really exposed and were interested in seeking and really those who are highly intelligent are more stimulated in a normal environment, seek information curiously, but on topics they are interested in, and not those they are interested in omitting, and they do retain conceptual data better, and automatically perform better on these tests. Profoundly gifted kids vacuum information and seek new information out of great curiosity, but environments are often less stimulating, children choose their interests, and some level of natural interests and disinterests steer highly intelligent kids toward and away from, concepts that appear in this test. Intelligent problem solving results in how to divide life into what is entirely unexperienced and what is experienced deeply.

As an example, we can compare with the subtest measure on vocabulary from a normal IQ test, which has some similarity. I score 99.89% on this test and there is no scaling past this further, so I cannot test any higher. That’s as long as it is normed with the regular population. I perform very well on the MAT practice tests and have seen for myself without taking the actual test that it confirms my scores. This is due to my being able to absorb information from my environment, my being well-read on areas of interest, and so on. I score very high on this test even though I was understimulated outside the domain of athletics from middle school to the end of high school, and was discouraged away from reading that entire time. I read very little except towards the end of High School, yet like a kid vacuuming information, I still obtained very good conceptual knowledge across domains. However, it was not until later that I became highly interested in self-study, and I know from my recollections of all my learning experiences, that I did not learn the concepts required to do well on this test or the similar vocabulary section of the Stanford-Binet 5 until self-directed study around the age of 18 onwards. I did not look into the Miller Analogies test until after I was 34 years old, and by that time, I read far more probably than most in Mensa (going by the time commitment versus what I see around me and results of conversations), and I didn’t read almost anything outside of school while I was younger. My family did not encourage reading. This implies that those who are profoundly gifted cannot use their native capacities on the test, without conceptual mastery because they would do poorly, and those who did not read in youth or come from other nations cannot really utilize the test, depending on the time lost learning concepts of other languages, or not learning concepts at all, as with some native tribes.

A cause of my not wanting to take the formal Miller Analogies Test relates my not wanting to forever take academic examinations, and because in choosing which I might want to take for grad school, I wanted one that would be as widely accepted as possible, and the MAT simply is not accepted at as many schools as the GRE or the GMAT. The SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT and MAT are all considered test correlates to IQ, but having already testing with maximal scores on an IQ test, which is best, because it is the intelligence test that these tests are hoped to correlate to, selecting which one and deciding upon the time commitment for self study is important. What else does the test do for me for college admission for graduate school? This was a question I had, and I found anyway that I did not really need it for admission. But ultimately I did not take any of these anyway, finally realizing my immeasurable intelligence scores were adequate enough and I didn’t need more testing, and my application for college and my employment screenings already include my resumé, that has my psychometric information already included on it including my maximums, which state I’m smarter than most at Harvard already. I also wouldn’t need any of it anyway being advanced in my career past having any need for education, since those obtaining a number of doctorates wouldn’t be able to have the job that I obtained anyway, for rarity, competition, and difficulty. My job is what college degrees were for and not the other way around, if one was not wanting to simply teach as a professor.

One might wonder why I am spending so much time on the MAT, and that’s because it is a critical point of interest considering society admissions at and above the 99.997^th percentile, and it is the only test the Prometheus society accepts presently. But taking that test doesn’t get you into other societies that are higher, like Mega which doesn’t include it as an option and requires more tests that was created by Mega’s creator, Ronald Hoefflin, unless he had support. This means if you want to take a test to get into Mega you need yet more tests, that we will see are more dubious than the MAT, and the MAT does have serious limitations. These two societies do not accept any test that is an IQ test, that is in the ranges I included above for the Stanford-Binet 5 and the Wecheler, or those that have a similar heritage that have been extended, or are much older.

What I still like about the MAT is that it is still widely accepted and popularly used, whereas tests for the Higher Range past the Stanford-Binet V and Wechseler in extended ceiling tests are used infrequently by Psychologists. This is a cause for their not being accepted by Prometheus, but Prometheus then accepts the limitations of the MAT. Since neither Mega nor Prometheus accept these tests, it indicates an unwillingness to use them that is meaningful for the purposes of deiding what to take, and for suspecting that justifications relate to problems with these tests, even if they are seemingly in the same lineage as the tests I took.

There are other unpopular tests that are very close in similarity to the standard Stanford Binet 5 and Wechseler tests I took. At one point I considering taking the Cattell and the “Woodcock Johnson” (?!), but I could not find any psychometitor in either of my home locations at the time who administer it. By psychometitor I mean professional Psychologist who is skilled in test administration. They are also trained and have a reputation connected to proper administration of these tests for all people in the population. They also have ethical standards and relationships with organizations to which I was exposed when I obtained my degree in Psychology. Being infrequently administered, there are risks using these tests and the credibility of the Psychologists is more questionable for using them over others that are more standard. One cause for taking the Cattell, is entirely to inflate the resulting IQ scores, simply by taking the reports, written with standard deviations of 24. On the Stanford Binet V, I mentioned that one can score 99.89 percent rarity for subtests with maximum 145 subtest IQ, and an FSIQ combination result of up to approximately 164, at 99.997 percent rarity, at SD 15. Those same scores on the Cattell are 174 and 198, so it simply looks better to others to claim higher scores, but nobody being told understands only the percentiles should be used to stop this practice of confusing others. There is also a practice of translating scores of one test to the scores of another, so those who didn’t take the Cattell will say they hit the ceilings at 174 or 198, without telling you they never took it! Einstein’s score, which is unknown, is communicated to be 160, but his score on this test would be 198. They are the same score!They are based on subtest scores of 145 and 174 that have not been tested any higher if one scored maximally!

Despite being hard to find these tests, they appear more popularly used, and not less than extended ceiling tests going past my immeasurability marks. Being largely unused, and unpopular, being administered by only a few Psychologists at a distance, I thought it an odd choice to trust them. How do these Psychologists work out issues with administration of the test and proctoring and scoring, if there are so few in the community to provide mutual support. What is missing from intelligence tests of the High Range is that there is limited testing of the administration of the testsand correction of issues in the administration that should result in not providing scores, among many other issues that simply result from testing instrument. Many would not think of this not coming from the area of enterprise technology, where people recognize the many ways that products fail, and the many errors that tests can contain, if there is insufficient testing of the instrumentation. I don’t think those only in the sciences outside of mission critical enterprise and government technology would recognize this as easily either. Testing in technology is not a simple matter, and only certain functional tests are performed which relate to known risks. But there are so few people utilizing these tests that I don’t believe that the risks are known, and if anyone was going to discover what the risks were, or ask someone about what they might be, I would likely be the kind of consultant needed to provide that support. This is a field of rare professionals with little support. This is unlike the use of tests like the Stanford Binet or Wechseler, where there is plenty of usage and mutual community support, although I think there are many issues with these tests too, but that discussion will have to wait for a later edition of this book. All I will say now is that the problems with the popular standard tests are inherited in the higher range tests, and then the higher range tests have insurmountable problems on their own at present making them risky and untrustworthy.

Older versions of the SAT have similar claim to IQ correlation at a high range. Tests like these have significant investment behind them, and many years of usage as standardized tests. People trust them enough to place them on resumé’s and applications, to the effect that there is tracing of their personal history involved, and one might argue There is very little risk of being seriously manipulated by such tests that have such significant support. They’ve been adopted by major universities that have an interest in protecting the records of their students, and these universities would not be interested in storing data that may involve a strong manipulative component. Another issue with rare IQ tests is if there are only a few test examiners they may not be reputable. It may be a sign of lack of reputability.

Dr. Xavier Jouve, mentioned by Mr. Jacobsen may have some credibility for tests for which he’s decided to utilize, tests not accepted by Mega and Prometheus, but that is not something I know about him not being a researcher of his work. My objections to tests in the category he utilizes, extended ceiling tests perhaps in the heritage of the Stanford Binet V, or experimental tests made by a small circle of researchers or individuals applying, it relate to concerns I see as foundational and would cause me to not want to become another Dr. Xavier Jouve myself, independently testing others without the support network of the APA fully backing my psychometric scoring of real people, although he may be very credible. I don’t trust attempts from individual psychologists and psychometitors who work alone or in isolation, although I value their studies and research. Standardization is important for individual health, as we’ll see, particularly as it relates to security and trustworthiness for self-application, for self-summarizing one’s mind. Those taking high range tests will greatly want to employ and share the score they receive if it is over the test maximums of the standard Stanford-Binet and Wechseler tests, but they are more dubious. It is natural for someone who obtains a higher score to want it to supersede other test scores that are more trustworthy that are lower. When we discuss “home grown” test for the ultra intelligent ranges, we’ll see that the same propensity exists for evermore dubious tests, until the most dubious is arrived at: fake tests made by individuals for themselves.

“How could such a thing exist?” you might ask. We’ll see shortly.

Returning to experimental examiners like Dr. Xavier Jouve, without using his name causing him further trouble. Other risks must be noted. There are other issues with such endeavors. As a rule, there is little professional acceptance of these tests that validate their authenticity, and there could be only little support from psychological associations. That is reputation risking for the association, any who choose to support, and examiners. It is important to not that most Psychologists are not psychometitors, so it’s not as though the total pool of psychologists is part of this community. Who is going to risk their reputation for independent examiners? If there is little support, why would the examiner risk their reputation standing alone(is)?

There is also the question of the size of the customer base. What is the total number of patient-customers of these high range tests that have such rarity in the population? What group is going to work to support his risks of working with less standards for fewer patients? What are his risks and what does the insurance consist of?

These independent examiners I would suspect have less earning potential. Less earning potential is related to crediblity too, for in medicine, those who do really well realy might be the very best doctors. One has to think over the probabilities that independent examiners are fringe with less earning potential, having found niche work to perform to have an income. This may seem like it is inapplicable but on the smallest scale of the profession of test-design and application, we have the amature test designer, adn these are the most dubious. Some have customers like Mr. Paul Cooijmans, but earning potential is lower than for professional psychometric exams. Just above this may be the average independent examiner.

Health record requirements exist regardless of scale and popularity of tests. If there are fewer customers quality diminishes. Funding sources have less cause to provide funds. With too few people in the highest range, test takers are assured to be minimal, for that range. There is still a need of sufficient testing of test administration and not the test, and if there are few to administrated there is a poverty of data. The issue of having too few super intelligent people to need these tests makes me feel more confident that there is not a large enough customer base to support a quality product. The test is a product of instrumentation, like a medical device. It’s like thinking that a luxurious new version of the iPhone with extended capabilities overcoming science could exist from a few customers and not millions. The iPhone simply doesn’t exist without market expectations. The lack of other people needing such tests makes me feel plenty confident about the untrustworthiness of the tests, which would be less than amazing products, with less product testing of all kinds.

This is very different from the other tests discussed earlier, the one’s I’ve taken, and have been exposed to, that everyone knows and uses. It does not appears that school systems accept use of these tests thinking them non-standard. This problem of having no standardization, being experimental, having a lack of norming for real rank ordering with the population, little to no adoption, and low support from major organizations really does completely diminish the value of these tests. One becomes an individual experiment. Some examiners in the High Intelligence community who created their test entirely independently, in such a way as to be very strange and idiosyncratic, like the tests of Paul Cooijmans, not demeaning Mr. Cooijmans, but honestly commenting on their truly idiosyncratic nature. I spoke with him and received a test for review, considered taking it, and decided it was risky. They are interesting and he is an independent experimentor attempting to help people self-elucidate, but I did not want to become an experiment regarding both the validity of the test and health records. I remember recommending to him one potential software tool for tracking his tests so they didn’t slip out for distribution. There are few protections so these tests potentially can be shared to others, who might be informed of scores. I belive this is a concern for tests just as idiosyncratic for being independently developed by the Mega Society. Paul Cooijmans runs the Giga Society.

Being very serious, I can make tests too, and probably very good ones. I don’t think it can be successful however, for ethical application to others, even if to an extent it is for fun. Being a [guide of startups for executives, who want their technology to be tested, avoid risks, and protect their health, I wouldn’t even start considering the digital security needs relating to health records.

The independent test creators in the High IQ community are certainly not having their tests examined by ethical committees.

It creates a health risk to take these tests, and risk to records, and risks to one’s own credibility, for deciding to believe results that cannot be validated, that were created and provided by an individual with vested interests. People who are assigned a score too high may really believe their scores, and this would impact their lives in strange and pervasive ways. The individual motive of wanting to have research that has useful and truthful results, even if the results really are not useful or truthful, is already a known risk in the sciences. One must eventually find support from peers and from institutions to have credibility, not only with papers that are published resulting from research, but more especially for anything resulting in what would require ethical committee approval for ongoing research with human participants. In my experience in Psychology, test designs involving human participants require approval in advance, and disclosures need to be made to anyone involved, including disclosures about the possible inapplicability of results. I had to be aware of committe requirements in planning experimental designs at the University of Maryland and participated as a volunteer in tests on perception, that required disclosures to me. Creating a psychological exam that will be used by people over many years, is effectively including them in a long term social-psychological study, and very definitely would invoke the involvement of an ethical committee if created in a university context before it could be administered to volunteers. In a university context, it may be possible to apply for and gain approval from an ethical committee to conduct research on experimental tests, with hopes of eventually publishing them for more general use in the larger population. But I think those efforts would be instantly thwarted by inability to actually get sufficient research done, because after all, one is attempting to measure the high range, and some are trying to measure to the millionth percentil or rarer. Can one even obtain participants, at the university, using the student population, who score at the levels that are interesting? How does one broaden such studies, to a number of universities, to gain more participants? Now consider, further, that one must definitely devote one’s career to make such an enterprise successful. Has any Psychologist had success doing this, and is there any promising research on this front, to have a test finally standardized for this purpose? It appears to me that the scarcity of participants makes this an unreasonable expectation.

Let us transition to considering who is creating these tests as we prepare for the final question concerning scam artists and fraud. Many of these tests are not created in a university context, with volunteers, after approvals from an ethical committee. These test creators are operating outside of any system of checks and balances on quality of research, and on the ethics of continuing with a completed test!

These test creators seem to be those who might be in the immeasurable range, looking for more ways to find self-understanding, and may simply have interest too, in explaining intelligence itself and how it scales. Producing tests is like producing games, and in a way, like producing works of art, so again, I don’t want to completely diminish efforts made by independent researchers working with small groups of customer-participants. But those who are in the immeasurable range should be aware of the unethicality of these practices as it relates to health records, at least under the ethical codes existing in academic research and medical practice, and I find it surprising they would persist in making some of the tests that result in certifications and society admissions. There are huge risks. Some of these tests have not yet been connected with Psychology, and Health Records, and need for validities to be establish, protecting the minds of those who are scored and their relations. It appers once this comes under scrutiny these test preparers would need to stop and since Mega only utilizes tests like these, that are “homegrown” I can imagine this would be a threat to their continuity, unless of course they opt for a test like the MAT for acceptance, like the Prometheus society. Risk mitigation may be a cause of this selection by this society.

In my experience in the high IQ societies, there are still obviously poor motives for inventing and taking “homegrown” tests, outside the context of the Psychological sciences, making them mostly untrustworthy:

1. There is a motivation to create and lead societies on the basis of these tests, self-made, that are “higher societies”, for presentation of profound giftedness to its members and the public.
2. There is a motivation to perpetuate societies that seem to have higher authority, and protect these already created tests that were used for admission.
3. There is a motivation to protect one’s investment in having taken a dubious test created by an individual.
4. There is a motivation to protect one’s investement having made a test.
5. There is a motivation to self-validate using these tests. Meaning test creators use these tests on themselves to pretend they’ve been proven they are the smartest, and that they are legitimate “leaders” of the entire community. Originators of societies can get away without ever having been tested, particularly if the tests were made by them, and have unexpected answers that are not those they intended. Making a test is not taking a test.
6. At the very worst, there is also the motivation to provide tests that simply inflate scores because one has not scored well on anything else, or well enough to create self-satisfaction.

There is a very unfortunate result of these observations. The first is that there are very incredible obstacles to overcome to arrive at a serious test, following the steps required in the sciences, in an academic environment. What are the costs involved in a startup business wanting to arrive at a final test to find a solution for the immeasurably intelligent? It would be more costly than for an equivalent of the Stanford-Binet! Because it is more complex and not less! Unless some ethics are sacrificed, and that too is an interesting topic: to create a test that too few will utilize may require cost reductions that result in bypassing moral standards. This may explain why there is little work being performed on intelligence for the highest range, and why independent “homegrown test” creators exist, partly, and the necessity of bypassing ethics in order to do any of the work. Professional ethics is definitely bypassed in good quantity, even if there are justifications. But what then are the justifications?

I believe individual test creators are very likely to have research that does not lead to a completed test, allowed to be administered at a cost, by psychologists. Were the test creation experimental processes transparently shared for creation of homegrown tests like Mega’s Titan test? Were the tests circulated for peer review? Are there answers to questions on these tests really?

Another issue is that every test maker who is not utilizing an experimental design to arrive at an intelligence test will be unable to demonstrate that they do not have any of the above listed motives. By doing it outside of the sciences one is creating a product that definitely has not had ethical committee backing, or peer review/support.

Issues of utility and not only ethics relate to these tests:

1. Very few people hit the ceiling of IQ tests and could want to take additional tests to learn more.
2. The tests created cannot establish a rank order with the general population, who is going to be compared with the “test victor”.
3. Anyone who uses such a test to “improve their rank” has openly exhibited self-deception, and a motive to deceive others. We have seen that such a test could only be produced in a university setting with huge numbers of participants, otherwise it’s not as trustworthy, which means one cannot well trust self-application, but that is an objective.
4. The most intelligent should be the most aware of these limitations, and yet illustrate their self-deception by trusting such tests.

The people who hope to benefit from these tests then illustrate cognitive biases for ultimately believing the results. Notice they would have no such error, in simply stating they do not know their IQs because of the limitations of the trusted standard tests! Worse still, many may not have takent the standard tests.

There is feel in the High IQ communities that have a cross section of individuals from all societies that some in the highest societies would have failed the Mensa test. If one fails the Mensa test, does worse than expected on the Stanford-Binet, the Wechseler, Cattell, Raven, or Woodcock Johnson, one can still take more tests. But that doesn’t mean they already know they are not immeasurable on those tests. Instead they can bypass their knowledge of their true scores and take ever more dubious tests until they are in some society that is above all the others. But as I say in miscellaneous parts of this interview, their conversation is often low quality, which is the cause for suspecting they simply are not of the giftedness level for any society.

There is a credibility to Mensa that is often overlooked. It really does seem as though the membership is more consistently reputable.

It may be that some test creators, who are researchers within the discipline of Psychology, may have fewer motivations to do anything that is not completely in the interests of science, and may exhibit a genuine desire for obtaining accurate psychometrics. I also implicitly agree, that there is a plain scaling problem in measuring intelligence, and that since one has already scaled the difficulty of subtest scores on standardized tests, one can obviously scale them further until a diminishing pool of people can respond with correct answers. As I stated, the MAT appears to be doing this fairly well. The problem is one cannot rank order them in a trusted way without overcoming difficult norming requirements required to combine the populations of the upper and lower ranges with success.

The ceiling problem exists, because once one has gotten all answers on a test, there is a clear feeling that one could go further. Meaning one is certainly smarter than one has been measured to be. However, knowing that this scaling problem exists, and knowing that there is a definite point in which problems would be too complex for me to solve, does not imply that, scaling it on my own, creating my own test, will reveal where others would fail, across the ceiling, so that I can score myself and them with a new FSIQ, higher than that provided by other tests.

The intuition that this scaling can be continued is what I think drives some to create tests and to persist even with experimental research limitations that doom them.

Every score coming from these tests involve some commitment to a rank-order that is not trustworthy. To take these tests and believe the results, often coming from a single person with no training in psychology, has a very bad effect on the test taker, who believes the number represents a summary of their mental capacity.

“I’ve used a test created by an individual to summarize my entire mind, or my entire cognitive ability.”

One is vastly more safe taking standardized tests with lower ceilings, and committing to remaining content with not knowing how far one could go beyond the ceiling. This is because there are very few bad motives in these tests, and they are well established and standardized, and believing one’s scores is not an act of self-deception. At the higher ranges, it appears there is always an element of self-deception. Again, this is what the Prometheus society seeks to avoid, by taking a totally standardized test as its only one for admission, from academia, the only place where the test could be normed. This is an extremely great difference than having a society creator make a test on their own. However the MAT suffers from the aforementioned defects, and since it is the only test accepted by the society I think their are flaws regarding the veracity of other societies like Mega.

Moving along, it should be noted that certain socieites like Mensa, Intertel, and Triple Nine Society all have a similar admissions list regarding tests. This indicates an agreement as to what is valuable, and there are far more tests to consider than those I discussed, by my interest is to discuss what is most critica in a way that covers most cases. Prometheus society uses only one test, that is also accepted by each of these other societies. But it only accepts one, while the others accept many. This is strange. Furthemore it is not like the tests of independent creators and Dr. Xavier Jouve, or older tests like the Stanford Binet LM.This makes the society a bit strange, and a bit verbal, because the MAT is only a verbal test. Pitting Prometheus with Mega, Mega is now strange for not accepting the Miller Analogies Test, which at least has repuation from a third party, and academic institutional backing. It made its own “homegrown” tests, makign it more obscure than old tests or Dr. Xavier Jouve’s category of experimental tests with low usage (again not knowing much about Dr. Jouve.

The lack of agreement between the smartest regarding tests, their adoption of differing tests without accepting others, indicates to me confusion in the supposed upper echelons, and I believe there are risks for taking an array of separate tests on those who are already immeasurably intelligent to have an admission that is of dubious consequence, with uncertain conclusions.

As one increases the requisite intelligence to join a society, one finds that one is less and less convinced about veracity, and issues related to potential scamming behavior increase. In Mega, one is providing scores to someone who is unlike a trusted psychologist, to the organiation that made it, with uncertainty as to the trustworthiness of scores, and meanwhile, the next level society down, Prometheus, is using a test that scores to 8 standard deviations, a number that noone can achieve, covering both the 5th and 6th deviations. There appears to be confusion in these societies and they appears to be examples of societies unable to really select an appropriate high range test that has the qualities of the more trusted tests like the Stanford-Binet and Wechseler. An each do not accept tests like that from Dr. Xavier Jouve, or experimental independent psychometric test creators.

Moreover, the Mega Society has selected pattern recognition tests, more mathematical, whereas Prometheus has selected a verbal test. Together they would perhaps have something of balance like a normal IQ test, testing both domains, but instead they go one way or the other.

I have explored the potential of taking alternative tests for getting a more accurate prediction of my range, having the issue of not knowing my true intelligence from attaining ceiling scores on more established IQ tests, on portions that are both culture-fair, and portions that are not culture-fair, that correspond directly in content to those tests created for the highest ranges. For example, the Mega test was created by Mr. Ronald Hoefflin, with reliance on culture fair properties that involve pattern recognition, mathematical abilities relating to visuospatial manipulation of geometric objects and the like, areas that I score maximally on standard IQ tests. As a child I scored maximally, and did again as an adult. Similarly, the Miller Analogies Test focuses on vocabulary, which relates to a subtest, again, that I scored maximally (untestable vocabulary). Each test resembles tests I have scored at 99.89% on a well-normed standardized IQ subtest. But why split-brain test taking between two societies just to understand both verbal and visual IQ. I’m supposed to trust that each is good enough for both, but people who score maximally on matrix reasoning are not expected to score maximally on vocabulary and vice versa. There is risk of testing excessively to join a society in which each is deficient in one of the two domains, while I’m not.

I reached out to Mr. Hoefflin once checking to see if the Titan Test was still scored, and he responded briefly, paraphrasing, that it was “available”. I chose not to take this test due to risks mentioned throughout, but recently wondered, if he might accept answers as correct, without actually scoring them. This is not faulting Mr. Hoefflin ignorantly–instead, it is just something one must consider before taking such a test. Prometheus’s process does not have this extremely serious issue. It really is possible that some of these tests have many answers to questions created by individuals, like in educational instruction, where questions prompt unexpected results by the most gifted. Not knowing if the answer is correct or not, a teacher, or a scorer of an untimed test, would realize the time required to confirm the answer. In the profound range, on an independently made test, and unexpected answer may really prove that the test creator didn’t know the answer to the question and perhaps never will. If that is the case, they may be admitted into the society for self-protection. Consider in complex mathematics, someone like Kurt Gödel, creator of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, just thinks “I proved it right”, then a hundred or two years later it is discovered, it was wrong. This means the mathematical formulae creator creating a puzzle to be sorted out by others, would never know even with an extra lifetime that it was wrong. Likewise, someone like myself, might create an impossible matrix reasoning puzzle for the immeasurable range, with an expected score. Then I discover it is either out of everyone’s range and the answer is unknown really due to an error, or I get an answer that is unexpected, that is the true answer, that I may not understand. To understand it, it may take many years. Do I admit that? Since this is a problem for the immeasurable range, only the immeasurable debate about it, like mathematicians, for years or centuries until a resolution is found. But the mathematical questions are open and international, whereas the psychometric puzzles are closed. For this reason I think it likely tests go unscored but people are admitted, to conceal that answers are unknown, sometimes. If that is not the case, there is risk that it could occur.

Folks such as myself really have no good options for establishing IQ. We can rely on an academic test that is not culture fair like the Miller Analogies test, or else resort to tests created by some very intelligent members of the high IQ Societies, and some scam artists. These tests, from my examination, having very good familiarity with reliable tests, and university training to be a psychologist, are untrustworthy; and not only for statistical limitations on norming, but much worse, the strong desire of various personalities to “prove” that they are the smartest, using alternative tests that they or their friends created:

“I’ll create the test that says I score high, or a friend will.”

The smaller and the more focused the test, the more likely it is that this test is forfinding alternative paths into societies, or that the tests will realate to subtests of the Stanford Binet on one side or other of the verbal/visual split, making FSIQ summary unreliable.

Entire societies and their credibility hinge on whether or not their tests that are used for admission really do test what they claim to test. Even societies like Mega, that draw interest and some belief in authenticity from having interesting members, hinge on tests made by individual people; these tests appear difficult, but the appearance of difficultly is not enough to create a trustworthy rank order. Tests created by individual people, arguably should not have a name that creates the impression that it is standardized, and not the creation of one person, who again, makes the test, controls its publication, and controls the scoring, like “Titan Test”, which still seems obnoxious in it’s attempt to sound “ultra”. And very unprofessional. Mega is interesting, but I don’t believe it to be entirely authentic; and every member who was admitted using the test provided is aware of this. Reading the publications, one finds them to be occasionally of very high quality, but the character of the writing is not more complex than what finds in mathematical publications. One cannot read the journal Noesis and conclude that the test used for Mega or the group itself is authentic.

Then there is the question as to the utility of the informal method of analysing writings for significance and velocity of ideation, and for that as well see in subsequent questions, it appears the entire community produces less than I do alone. It appears to me that there is a lopsidedness in the comparison of these member’s avowed IQ and the quality of the materials produced, that is great enough to consider that these socieities have problems relating to admissions.If admissions it relates to testing.

Mega is more convincing than many other groups that exist peripherally to the more trusted societies that are more obviously serving people’s motives at pretense, like the Genius groups of Iakovos Koukas, although I don’t believe regarding the deviation scores of the members who gained admittance using any of the societie’s entrance tests. There is an oddly huge number of IQ societies, and most that are not well-known are obviously not genuine. They float tests that, again, were created by individuals who do not seem to have the experience or training to create psychological exams. Tests come from individuals who appear to have a vested interest in demonstrating they are the very smartest, and that the societies they create, are authentic enough for people to join. The result however, is that people are deceived as to their own intelligence, taking false tests, and believe themselves to be amidst other people who are highly intelligent. Instead, these groups are filled with a pretender support network, where no individual appears to be authentic, and all trust, believe-in, and rely on, tests created by random people who believe themselves to be “genius” and the like. These groups can be quite humorous and are obviously false, and their tests humorous as well. They create their own certifications with scores that are well outside of the range of what is testable by real tests, and then they quickly demonstrate they can hardly maintain an intellectual conversation. This is the sense in which I think these peripheral societies are less trustworthy than Mega, but Mega is also not trustworthy in my estimation.

There is risk of giving over to a random test constructor some claim to health information. It is unusual to trust a test creator with scoring of tests. Rather, one would expect it to be scored by trained psychometricians/psychologists who adopted the test. One puts oneself at some real risk taking an unstandardized test. One may receive results that one might believe, despite their having little validity. It appears some who have taken false tests have come to really believe their intelligence is at the very highest range; short conversations with some of these people instantly reveals deficiencies rather than high giftedness.

In short, I do not believe that any test for the upper range can be trusted, and those who reach maximum scores, like myself, have to content themselves with having an untestable intelligence that can’t be scored by the trustworthy tests. Thinking carefully about what is safe, it doesn’t make sense to me to risk taking alternative tests. The MAT test and other tests of verbal slant and culture-unfairness create risks as one is willing to accept perhaps an unbalanced IQ-correlate score that is higher. The meaningfulness is questionable and the MAT itself does not provide IQ scores. Instead, if one wants an IQ score, one is better off choosing:

“The most healthy and trusted tests.”

That’s what I’ve done and where I score immeasurably, and I will share my personal test details in my next edition of this book.

It is my strong recommendation that people focus on taking test batteries or individual trusted tests, that are standardized, that might have a lower ceiling; but a ceiling that is still high and trusted. If one scores high enough, one may achieve immeasurability and this is certainly adequate.

A large issue I see in the future for those societies that have not opted to do the same, is that they will have to demonstrate in artifacts and productions, a non-lopsidedness to their avowed scores that they received from these tests that are not as trustworthy. Reading through these questions, and considering that this entire book was written in twelve days, it is confusing how some could never complete a book at all, or write articles that never approach the qualities of academic journals, containing fine examples at complexity at good rates, from people who are not immeasurably gifted like the presnt author. These publications are certainly better than what is provided by Noesis, although there are things I like about Noesis too. More is stated on this as it relates to Mr. Jacobsen’s question concerning articles preferred from Noesis and elsewhere.

Before moving on, I’m aware of certain omissions in coverage, that I will cover for the next print edition of this book, but I hope the reader is aware that the next version will cover much that I know is missing, particularly relating to statistics and test coverage. Since this is an interview that has respondents who provided much less material, in the amount of a few pages versus several hundred, I hope the reader understands the contribution provided, and the velocity of significane provided, taking only twelve days, for more than 5/6ths of the content, at a quality that will exceed all earlier interviews.

This is in support of the entire community, and the public that needs reliable information.

This is the last answer finished in this interview, and wanting to finish, preserve the data regarding the twelve days of work, I know many inclusions I want to make specifically for this question. Two things will be in the next edition: A process for deciding what tests to take undervarious conditions similar to what I provide for large organizations, handling risk in complex circumstance, that in this case will relate to a combination of want of self-understanding admist all the tests that exist and health and security concerns that have been overlooked in the comunities, and 2) The debunking of the upper scale intelligence tests on scientific and mathematical grounds, and not only grounds appropriate for readers expecting interview-like responses, and 3) a relationship between these and the more formalized version of the informal process of assessing conversation using velocity of significance and ideation.

I expect readers in the community will know already from knowing my earlier contributions that this will be likely a debunking of the upper range high IQ communities on medical and safety grounds, and grounds relating to the assessment of productions and artifacts establishing life history and velocity of significance.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 2: How can individuals read more on matters of IQ, societies, intelligence, and the like, outside of the references in the article?

Learning More About Intelligent People, and How they are Measured, and Intelligence Itself

The audience of this question is composed of members outside the community. I noticed that my style of answering this question, which was prepared earlier is very different than my style answering the other questions. I considered rewriting this answer, but instead, in keeping with the objective of exhibiting how styles change from the same person speaking to others in differing ranges, I have chosen to retain the style. Fascinatingly, the audience really may be the same on reflection, just my thoughts about who might want the answers, changed my idea about who I would direct my attention. This reduced the velocity of significance of ideas. The topic subject matter is also less of interest to me personally causing it to be reduced further. In this way a person of high intelligence can switch modes of communication that can conceal the extent of the intelligence had. However, this answer should be of good interest to those within the intelligence community and I expect good ideas may result from reading along.

I commented in the article cited by Mr. Jacobsen that an effective method for gaining an understanding of highly intelligent people is watching them speak and communicate, and that it would be especially interesting to move away from watching figures who are well known, to view those who are not well-known. Fame is unrelated to the expression of extreme intelligence in humans, and very few attain any sort of fame, or interest, meaning popularity, from others who are unlike them. I suggested in my brief blog post mentioned by Mr. Jacobsen that one good approach would be to watch YouTube videos of people who are apparently very smart. On that page there are suggestions of people to watch, and that list in retrospect is not a great one, and is certainly not long enough, being originally a quick posting on a site I no longer trust called Quora (very low quality), but one can simply search for people who are famous for being extremely productive in academics, philosophy, and science, and watch them speak. Some people who were acknowledged in this interview would be worth researching.

Rather than pursuing individuals for interviews or their time discussing topics of mutual interest, it may be helpful to find them all in one place, gathering for their annual meetups and so forth. I rarely attend Mensa meetups, or meetups of other groups, but I have, and they were mostly rewarding. People in this community are welcoming, for the most part, of people outside of the community, when they are allowed to be there, because of course, their loving spouses and family members cannot be expected to fall in the same IQ range. Thus they will bring family members to events, and so not only will you find opportunities for talking with very smart people, you will have chances for talking with their significant others, and family members, who might have very interesting things to say about their highly intelligent family member(s). These people would be pleasant company too, creating a good and comfortable environment if one is wanting to know more but is not a member of the societies themselves. Family members who arrived at events with intelligence community members may be excluded from certain events, but may still spend time nearby, simply waiting for them to finish with their meetings. This would create chances to meet people with their families in contexts peripheral to the gatherings. Even if there are rules excluding family members from main events, it should be possible to join for journalistic reasons, to observe. These communities may be interested in having a public relations or media presence. Either way there are opportunities like this for getting better access to large groups of people to meet directly. There is a huge requirement though, related to the purpose of the article, and that is: be kind and respectful, and try not to present any kind of risk to these important people, who include many examples of the best minds that exist in our human populations.

This would give some ideas about how people in the societies are in person, but even still, quite a lot is not revealed about who highly intelligent people are, and how they perform under demanding circumstances, like those conditions created by proctored IQ testing. Seeing them speak together would provide listening opportunities to discover how they talk naturally with each other, with more excitement and chances to express how they really think internally.

I remember my first IQ tests from when I was a child clearly. The reader, if schooled in a district that tests for giftedness, might have some recollections of these early tests were like too, and perhaps what they enjoyed or disliked about those tests. I think it likely that a very large population of people have a good understanding already of IQ and what IQ testing consists of, and some idea about range, and aptitudes. I recall vividly my experience doing specific tests around manipulating triangles and other shapes to construct larger shapes, with a psychometrician or psychologist, in my elementary school, in a private room. I also recall having to estimate the number of blocks that were within larger configurations of blocks at different orientations. I recall these tests, I believe, because I was quite good at them. Taking IQ tests in my thirties, many years later, I excelled at these same tests again, obtaining ceiling scores. I can obtain ceiling scores on other tests too, and in general, I do not have a fearful relationship with intelligence testing or intelligence as a result. I would suggest that if a reader has some fear around IQ tests, it may relate to some recollection at having a difficult time on IQ tests, which are intended to be difficult, and are for most of the population. This experience may typify test taking recollections.

In order to get additional confirmation about one’s suspected IQ range, it may be useful to again take proctored examinations as an adult. One could take the Mensa test and get a feel for range, but I would more seriously suggest taking a proctored examination with a psychologist. These can be somewhat costly, but they give the in person experience of test selection by the psychologist (you can take these tests more than once, after a period of some years elapse, and they would not be precisely the same test, although the tests would feel quite similar). Professional, hand-written score reports are provided by the psychologist too, and these are quite nice to include as part of one’s historical documents and autobiography. However, while making these suggestions, I do have some reservations, thinking the reader probably really does already have a good idea of range, and probably, if there isn’t a specific personal reason to get confirmation, the primary reason for taking a test would have to be research on intelligence, or out of some interest in psychology, psychometrics and the like. Since the question above was put forth without any indication about personal self-interest in obtaining confirming scores, I suggest this in-person test taking as a very good method for gaining a better understanding of intelligence as a part of research interests.

When I was being trained to become a Psychologist in my university studies, I also obtained text books that provided a very good historical context for the development of IQ tests, and also a good foundation about the validity of the tests, and information about how they are proctored and performed by licensed psychologists who are able to obtain the published tests, and instructions for scoring. If one gets far enough along in studies of Psychology, one can obtain the tests themselves. I did not pursue this, but through the combination of reading on how tests are administered, and taking the tests with Psychologists who shared more information, I gained a very complete understanding. But beyond this, it is possible to “get the keys to the tests” and administer the Stanford Binet and other tests to those who want to know more. This is a very valuable pursuit, because it can reveal cognitive impairments in children, and also reveal high giftedness in those who will need special education. When I obtained my tests as an adult, it appeared that the primary customers of psychologists providing the tests were to confirm definite strengths and weaknesses in children who were already known to parents and adults to have special difficulties or special strengths. There seemed to be less of an interest in parents with kids who seemed to be well balanced and have normal functioning. Functioning in the normal range there seems to be less of a need for special attention, and therefore perhaps less motivation to take costly tests with a psychologist, after having already been tested by a psychologist, perhaps for free, in the public or private education systems.

If one wants to know more, one can reach out to me as well, since I have considerable experience, all life long, with the experience of being gifted in the high range, of having training to become a Psychologist within this personal context, of having had a number of tests longitudinally over my lifespan, and of having experience with others in person, and in forums, who are extremely intelligent, in the very highest ranges of intelligence. One can reach me in the correspondence section below. I would be enthusiastic to hear from readers interested, whoever they might be, so long as they are kind and well-intentioned. I take communication very seriously these days having security concerns, and if there are any keywords indicating risks, or the slightest meanings that could be taken the wrong way, I may immediately delete it rather than absorb the information. So take some care in any correspondence that you might want to send.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 3: What seem like the common reasons for the exceptionally intelligent and profoundly intelligent finding inappropriate employment or remaining unemployed/underemployed?

Two Pathways in Life, and the Desire to Blend Them

Note: This question was also answered at a much earlier time, about two years earlier, and exhibits a very different writing style that seemed somewhat foreign to my present disposition.

The primary pathway decision faced by those are highly intelligent appears to be the following, which is how I experienced it:

1. “Is it worth the time and frustration to attain organizational success, given I do not value it all that much?”
2. “Is it worth the time and risks to pursue a high income, for the leisure attained, or is it more valuable to choose a modest income, easily achieved, and commit?”
3. “How can I conserve energy for thinking about what I would like to think about, and for doing what I would like to do?”

On all three points above, most will grapple, and perhaps not find a long-term solution. People have a hard time choosing to save over having material comforts for long periods of time. Some have a lot of trouble identifying what they care about as far as their use of minds and time; whereas, some highly intelligent people will choose the easiest of jobs to automate their performance, freeing their mind completely for their own thoughts, which might have nothing at all to do with work, while others observing their behavior, wonder why they might not opt for materials and organizational success? These people have not been able to disentangle that what one values doing with one’s mind is separate from pleasing others socially, and gaining materials that others find attractive.

Appropriate employment for the talented and especially gifted seems to be a greater rarity than being especially talented or gifted, and realizing this early, many have to make choices to settle into jobs and professions that simply do not provide stimulation and opportunities that might be entirely satisfying. It is an odd thing though, to think that organizations should have occupations fulfilling such a need. Employment is not for those being employed, except for in rare circumstances. Occupations, instead, fulfill market opportunities, closely related to desired extractions by a business owner. A business owner is aware of some opportunity for earning money, and creates an organizational structure, most often starting with himself/herself, which effectively gains money on their effort. Seeing more market opportunity, and understanding the desirability of having leisure time, the owners hire employees that they pay less for similar efforts. Organizations grow indefinitely on this pyramid pathway, with the ownership amassing wealth obtained from increasing market opportunity and an increase of employees who are paid less than what they would prefer. This discrepancy in value, is what incentivizes the ownership to continue to grow and improve their business, likely with much fewer hours of contribution, but greater contribution using mental contributions.

Business owners attain much of what an intelligent person wants for themselves, and likely the business owner is intelligent, but most often not as intelligent as someone in the highest ranges. People outside the highest ranges recognize the intelligence of business owners, particularly owners of businesses that are extremely desirable and high earning, and identify business success with intelligence. However, this is a misidentification. Those who are well positioned with modest intelligence are in a better position, it appears, for this type of success, than those in the highest ranges, who are interested in things like artistic creation, intellectual creations, and simply thinking about things that are not so mundane as business.

It is obvious too, however, that those in the highest ranges would benefit from being business owners, or being employees at the very top of the business, if the business is so well developed, that a special intelligentsia is needed for maintaining it. This occurs in organizations like large software companies, scientific companies, and organizations of government, like NASA. Similar demands, exist, certainly for military organizations, like the Air Force and others, that recruit specifically for gifted people.I was fortunate to find myself moving through businesses and organizations like these as a consultant, later having real work with people in these organizations, while functioning as an executive. However, the people who become employed do not necessarily control the range or extent of their tasks, and even at the top, there may be an expectation of much specialization. So the highest range individual, who wants freedom of mind to connect diverse topics, finds themselves someone well rewarded with respect to income, and yet give up energy and hours to devote themselves to still trivial specialized tasks. From outside, these highly intelligent people may appear quite well off, when in reality they are understimulated and still have few opportunities for maximizing potential. For this reason, these roles can be filled by those who are intelligent but are still not of the very highest intelligence, and these more moderately intelligent people might be more completely fulfilled. The most intelligent would benefit most greatly from the freedoms of being the owners of the business, where wealth might enable them to go beyond their own business to a range of activities that permit higher generality, higher interdisciplinarianism, and the like, or simply time to pursue activities that free the mind. Since I planned effectively, and had and/or created opportunities that were headed in a direction consistent with these wants of the most intelligent people, I finally realized a career that included business ownership just like this.

It appears that these business ownership opportunities are still not for all those who are highly intelligent, and appears somewhat uninteresting. There is also competition with those who might already have wealth, might already inherit the businesses, might already be in a position of understanding very closely the market opportunities that creates competitive advantages even over those who are more highly intelligent. One does not necessarily have market feel and experience, and incentive to succeed when there is a market opportunity which might be invisible except for those who are more intimately and socially involved. Involvement then can provide better opportunity than raw intelligence.

The highly intelligent then, opt for pursuing whatever is satisfying to their own minds, and have to gauge the risks associated with trying to find a career that produces income, sacrificing time and energy, that could be used for thinking freely instead.

I personally prefer one of two types of employment:

1. Doing something that is so easy that it requires no thinking, but is in a healthful environment; or
2. Doing something that is so complicated nobody else can do it, that is rewarding in income. Such a job is a rarity, and I was fortunate to find myself given opportunities after expending much time, at much risk, just seeing if such opportunities would ever come into existence.

At present, I run my own organization of one, as a Consultant guiding large organizations. This is a reiteration for those who read through, but I will repeat it very briefly for those who may have been specifically in this question but not others, or the introduction. I was able to build such a company, only after having attained Chief Architect at Adobe Systems, and Solutions Consultant, a role similar to that performed by Edward Snowden. One might think, being Chief Architect would be satisfying, and it was for a period, because I could work on tasks that were very high complexity. However, there was also the reality of limitations of colleagues and employees that could not necessarily execute in complex ways, if not for their own limitations (there were many talented colleagues), for inability to organize projects effectively. I found myself still unable to retain my intellectual property as well, and unable to eradicate manipulative tendencies of managers who wanted to shift roles, and do so without increasing income more than what was scheduled. Meaning my talents, which were obvious to all, could not create rewards in any way like if I was a business owner. So I left this job and discovered, that in business I had a much better level of control of my income, which was higher, and allowed for the total ownership of my own productions.

Even in my own business, the opportunities from clients dictate the complexity of what I’m doing. However, I can advance my business in any way I like as I perform this work, alongside, owning all my own contributions. If I wanted to work less I could work less. I could travel as desired. I ended up getting all that I wanted very precisely, exactly obtaining what I set out to obtain. However, I did not know that it would turn out this way, and many fortuitous circumstances made it possible. Having had a very good and elevated role at this software company enabled me to culminate my career as far as titles are concerned, and my subject matter expertise was desired by those in my network I already knew, and companies who had needs from an elevated consultant. Later I won many customers who were totally separate from the earlier business relationships and was able to further advance my income and range of work activities.

So I am of the few who were able to combine personal mental goals with social-organizational, academic, and income advancement goals, that are sometimes quite opposite to one’s interests, sacrificing time and energy, with uncertain results. I recognize that my mental needs, are quite unlike those of many of the colleagues I have ever had, who seem more settled and less restless in their roles, even when they change little, because they seem to have a suitable level of complexity still, even in specialization, and an income level that, under social-comparison, appears good to themselves and those who might pay attention. They are able to gain material benefits that they think are enough for their personal goals, and stay in their roles for very long periods of time.

This is not satisfying to someone like myself, who needs to combine things further, have greater complexity, and greater control over income, locale, etc… What I wanted I communicated to a manager once, who upon reading my desires, must have felt quite powerless to support me. I wanted greater “Idea Execution” potential and used that exact phrase in an email and “sync up” conversation. I’m chronically having ideas that nobody finds interesting, that have high value, and are highly interdisciplinarian. They are general and abstract, and hard to communicate, and require money to bring to fruition. These goals relate to personal interests, that I’ve had since I was a teenager; goals I would have sacrificed my career for, if I could have achieved them otherwise.

I wanted:

1. Time and energy to have important ideas and to be able to write about those ideas.
2. Later I wanted resources, especially monetary resources, and ownership of my own IP, to record those ideas into actual writing, and software.
3. Later I wanted those ideas to connect to business objectives supporting a range of industries, and to be able to deploy those ideas at those businesses and industries, in an organization changing way, supporting other people and their goals.
4. I wanted to connect these writings with sufficient accomplishments to create authority, creating publishing pursuasiveness, and was able to do so in connecting it to my lofty titles I’ve had in doing business with customers, and academically, after many challenges, finally obtaining a number of degrees, and gaining admission at Harvard University, a well-enough-respected organization to make book publishing likely.

Highly intelligent people want to be able to communicate those thoughts they have that seem to be greatly valuable. As a teenager I was having many ideas I thought could change the world for the better. At that time, I knew there was a very long path ahead for having any credibility that would cause a readership to have any interest at all. I knew even my own family would not read my writings, and my friends would not either. If they would not read my writing, who would? Who would care to read anything I had to think about? These were thoughts I had in my early twenties that I recorded in a journal kept that I still have archived, called Rational Times.

These are other reasons why I felt the need to have organizational and academic attainments. They had to be enough to create attention or authority. Accomplishments in the High Intelligence societies was a completely unexpected phenomena, but that occurred along the way too, after reconfirming my intelligence once again, working as a software architect at the Food Network (more precisely, Scripps Networks, whose television channels were later taken on by Discovery, including HGTV, Travel Channel, etc… other businesses I also supported). While performing a complex role, I thought to myself, “Why have I not joined Mensa already?” Impressed at my seeming ability to do my job at an increasingly challenging level, at a pace that seemed to exceed colleagues, who I already respected for their abilities, I thought to confirm what I learned in youth. This was also catalyzed by an experience with the book Outliers as I mentioned earlier. I confirmed again my abilities and joined Mensa, and began interacting there and in a number of other groups. While simply socializing, while doing my work in software, and in academia, I attained a level of respect, and attention, and many personal relationships, which further developed some notoriety in the High IQ societies. Now I’m quite well recognized in the High IQ community, and inso doing, developed at least some interested readership.

Today I have potential for a healthy writing career, apart from writing I do in my work for various organizations in a number of industries (making it more challenging, and more interesting, having very different customers with different needs, in different places, even international locations, like New Zealand). I have the authority requisite, and some niche readership, and an online Book and Journal with underlying technology I own, having written the software from scratch and from various pieces freely available (which is normal in creating software products), for artistic and communication satisfaction.

These productions feed my business value as well, so I was able to connect the value of my personal writings, and underlying software, to the creations of large organizations. For example, I have recently designed the technology for AbbVie, Inc’s international website, which was deployed without issue, and connected my ideas shared with that organization, with ideas developed in my personal life and in my business. This business has many television commercials now for their various pharmaceutical products, which usually have other brand names. The company name is identifiable at the end of the commercials. If you watch television you’ll notice the frequency of the commercials, because of the wide range of drugs they sell that are communicated using totally separate commercials.

There is an odd synthesis to my career, which is satisfying beyond what I thought possible, but very close to what I would most want, and it appears to be precisely what would be rewarding to others in the very highest ranges of intelligence. In fact, communicating with many of them, I become aware of their journeys, which do resemble my own. I very much wish that many who are looking for the same fulfillment are able to find it. While I find myself admiring the person who would eschew organizational attainment for purely mental attainment, and productions outside of existing organizational structures, and academia, I hope they are able to have income attainment and experiences that are able to broaden their communication potential. Because that is what is often wanted—they want to be able to share what is in their minds, that they might be unable to share without additional power to do so.

I believe the level of preparation required for someone in the very high range of intelligence to share what they would like to share from their minds, to be quite extraordinary. There is no doubt to me that many others in the community would like to have the organizational, academic, and software/writing IP ownership that I have, relating to my writings. Without having gone through decades of preparations, which may not be fortuitous, I do think smaller outlets at communicating to a perhaps receptive audience is still very desirable. Articles like that from Grady Towers, and Hank Pfeffer, listed in my references discussed earlier, are unlikely to have a wide readership, or interest, even being shared through channels like Mega and Prometheus. However, they could and did connect with audiences who can benefit directly, and I too have benefited from their works.

In the high intelligence society journals, works seems to have a lack of academic developments that would dissuade some readers from having a prolonged interest, and this again is part of what I mean about the extraordinary requirements of sharing one’s mind, at this level. One seems to need to exceed what can be produced academically, somehow. This can be achieved, with some notice, if the writing has an informality that is greatly offset by the power of what is stated. Some writers seem to be able to pull this off, but it may go unnoticed by those who might not be able to discern, since the mind-matching I mentioned is required for appraising significance more fully. What they would like to say is quite remarkable, and they communicate extremely effectively and powerfully. But they lack very definitely in having the academic and career undergrowth, that would seem to provide more formal authority to their writings, and I believe they would want this for themselves, if they could have it. But alas, academic life is slow and torturous, and their minds being too fast, cannot sometimes take the frustrations associated. Again this relates to the velocity of significance and ideation they experience. I experienced this myself and many times needed breaks in college, for becoming disillusioned in the supposed objectives of higher education, easily obtained independently, but without papers.

There is a concept I became acquainted with somewhat recently, stated to be ikigai, and trusting that’s real Japanese, relay it here to the reader. This word relates to the fulfillment of joining interests in such a way that time is spent doing things that seem more holistic. Work, talent, interest, and gainful employment are related to one another. Such a term might lead the reader to think there is no special interest connecting, then, to high giftedness, but that is not the case. Rather, the size of the effort at synthesizing diverse talents and interests seems to be at stake. “How do I combine all my talents into one and into gainful employment?”, considering Hank Pfeffer’s article, it seems a somewhat silly pursuit. This is why I think certain forms of employment, again, seem like they are not appropriate to certain people. “Will this organization create ikigai from all my interests?” appears the absurdist of questions, particularly given the objectives of owners. People like myself worked in youth believing it to be impossible to make ikigai occur in a satisfying way. “It is impossible and so I will give up on this?” appears a result of the Terman study for some. I believe it to be very challenging and wonder if perhaps there is a greater ikigai for me in the future, while at the same time, I recognize what I have is something quite out of the ordinary, and I am contented for what I have at the moment, even if it could be better in some ways. I admit it is hard to think it could be better, unless very great riches are in my future. Being retired now though, I’m less concerned even to receive riches preferring to write this to you instead.

I think many of the highly intelligent understand this issue early, and opt for choosing what appears the lowest risk pathway, for preserving energy for doing what one considers to be most valuable.

In my life, having been influenced greatly by the works of various philosophers, who could only make their achievements having very abundant leisure time, I chose to pursue the very greatest income I could attain, while simultaneously devaluing income as having only secondary value. I had an interest in being a hermit on one hand, living alone and in nature, with few needs, and a desire to live in an urban environment, spending freely to enjoy the benefits of restaurants, not cooking, and having a nice apartment cared for by a landlord, so I had nearly no concerns whatsoever in doing mundane tasks. I value doing things with my hands in nature, and I value the benefits of having no needs for doing housework and mechanical tasks, so that I can focus exclusively on mental-academic pursuits, like reading and writing. I noticed though, that one can have all that one values if one has money. Ideally, one can have it without too much toil and self-sacrifice, and those who were born into wealth know the value of having had to do nothing at all to obtain it. Suddenly they have leisure to do anything and everything they want that they value perhaps intrinsically. The high intellect does benefit from being born into wealth, and many famous philosophers and scientists did not need to work incredibly hard to amass a savings providing security.

I was not born into such a scenario and knew, whatever success I might have in organizations, and success in income attainment, or business, would come primarily from myself, although I did have parents who were financially supportive as I was growing to be an independent adult. I would never be able to have a significant savings exclusively coming from my family, and I assumed there would never be an inheritance to wait for, which is something I personally detested as well, wanting instead for my parents to fully enjoy all their savings. My parents would deplete their resources in their interests, and I would have no ongoing connection to their financial wellbeing, ensuring they could enjoy themselves while I would live on my own merits.

So in my early 20’s I strove for financial independence, in a context that was not incredibly favorable.

It was especially unfavorable for a period due to my choice to drop out of High School. I experienced the improbability of advancing in a job I had during the period of not being in school, making 6 dollars an hour, even after being promoted, and recognized that organizational success in academics, and in work, might be the only way I could gain a significant income.

“How easy or accessible is it to earn a high income, in my case? Is this something I value, and want to pursue, to advance my own interests, or are my interests incompatible with such a life? Should I choose a more modest way of living, and do what brings value, giving my worldview, or should I find a way to secure and easier life with surplus money and material resources, to give myself more leisure time for my pursuits?”

I think there is a real dichotomous divide here, and that most people have to make decisions about this in order to secure their well-being at all stages of their lives.

One difference that appears to exist, is the degree of consideration made about this question early in life, versus later. Some appear to drift along, moving from one moment to the next, as if this were not a real question. Some will struggle through business without having a real aptitude for earning. Some will not make a choice between material interests in consumption, and saving funds, and will remain in debt, wanting both and never reconciling desires.

I think those in the very high IQ ranges are more likely to reconcile material interests with what seems to be of genuine value, and make calculations as to the reasonability of attaining a special degree of organizational or financial social success, and high income. Some eschew organizational and financial attainment early, seeing its transitory social value, and seeing the time requirements for building wealth, and simply choose a path that will never produce the awe that one might expect from an exceptional mind that finds fame. These are highly intelligent people who recognize real futility early. “Even if I attain wealth, I know the following will occur [fill in the blank] and I will be unsatisfied.”

Then there is another segment, who recognizes this, and yet sees a very difficult path ahead not pursuing high income. “How will I ever write what I wish to write without the leisure time and energy to do so? How can I spend my time doing mundane work, depleting my energy, only to find at the completion of their workdays, they are having less and less energy, over time, to do anything felt to be valuable?”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 4. What was the eventual outcome or the larger conclusions from the Terman Study?

Some Comments on Maladaptation at the High Range

I am not a scholar of the Terman study, but understand that part of the results related to what was called “maladaptive” patterns of behavior, which seemed to occur at a greater rate as one approached the scores of the very most intelligent Termites. The Terman study is quite a long study, with results comprising a number of follow-ups, and for purposes of this response, I’m relying more on the article from Grady Towers, which touches on the same topic, and relies on some conclusions of the other study. There is another topic, from Mr. Michael Ferguson, called The Inappropriately Excluded, and because this article comes to mind, and is also quite well written, I feel I must mention it.

This maladaptive trend relates, again, to the article mentioned above, The Outsiders, and presents a consistent picture, that as one moves along the normal distribution rightwards one finds people increasingly unable to relate to the larger population around them, in ways that are satisfying to themselves, but are not necessarily unsatisfying those they interact with. By this I mean that other people may enjoy speaking with them, but something is missing in the experience to those who are more intelligent. Of course such a phenomenon finds expression wherever people interact, and is not exclusive to any particular environment where one might hope to have rewarding work or rewarding relationships. Seeking environments that offer satisfaction gradually becomes an exercise in futility, and one finally succumbs to a life that is somewhat lonely. Some are fortunate enough to find group membership with others who might be hard to find for issues of geographic distribution of demographics of intelligence, and are able to finally have mutually satisfying interactions. Work environments might not be possible to find, or may have obstacles and hindrances from admission and entry, that are themselves designed for those who fall lower on the spectrum, and may present an unsatisfying situation of having to “hoop jump” along to a satisfying academic career.

“I qualify in every way and yet on paper I do not qualify”

was something I experienced and still experience to this day, wondering if a Ph.d or two, or more, would be worth anything to me, and if years of study to complete a paper dissertation was something valuable given I can easily write papers on par with dissertations, having paid for no Ph.d program, and without having gone through any of the laborious steps to qualify for admissions.

This writing here, again, provides some relationship with the question as to the results of the Terman study, but not being a Terman scholar, and finding this interview a good opportunity to speak for myself, and others who experienced some degree of suffering at the thought of not finding a suitable environment for self-expression, and realization of potential, I thought I’d speak to the ultimate place it leads, which is the feeling of a repulsively slow corporate and academic edifice that strings one along with promises of doctorates and degrees, and good careers, that seem to have little tangible value for being disconnected from concrete accomplishments which flow readily from the mind, but are quite well connected with long and expensive and torturous submissive experiences being a student-customer. One wonders why one cannot read and work in labs without having to spend a decade or more paying for education in indentured servitude at a pace that is for people who are in the normal range and not the extraordinary range.

“I learned this as a child, a teen, again as a young adult, and again I must pay to certify to this, vaguely, over perhaps a decade as a university student, without any consumer controls?”

Such experiences as not being able to express oneself as oneself in a mode appropriate for accelerated learning, leads gradually to a feeling of unfulfillment and the feeling that the world has not situated its institutions or its organizations for such people. Instead they were made for others and one must simply find a way to exist comfortably, perhaps.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 5: Why should individuals stick to professional achievements positive for individual authentic self-esteem and the common good rather than a test score?

Testing for Self Understanding, and Focusing on Personal Development

Earlier in my section on my relevant background, I spoke about my history of need for self-affirmation, given my lack of support in youth despite my demonstrated giftedness, to finally confirm my total intellectual capacity. This particular question asks why individuals should stick to professional achievements over test scores. I don’t testing is incompatible with arriving at a more complete scientific self-understanding using tools of measurement. In education feedback on learnings is provided by testing and this is universally supported in our culture, although all can remember limitations in testing from childhood. Instead, I think if we had more tools for measurement, that were better understood, that reductionistically went to our own biology, comprehensively medically, we would want that. I personally would like to have as complete a knowledge as I can of my own body, mind and nervous system, that I can have in a reasonable time, given my intellectual capacities and level of financial and government resources. It makes little sense to me to desire less medical information concerning myself, than more, given we do not have enough medical information about ourselves due to price!

We have seen that some tests have been created for the highly intelligent that are insufficiently medical. We saw that this creates bio-ethical concerns, that partly incriminate these tests, but not the desire to have more tests. The desire for these tests relates to the need to have better self-awareness, and wherever test creators are being honest in their attempts, even alone, to create better measures, there are useful contributions to society. The objective is an expansion to have a better understanding of the mind.

If one has a stroke, degenerative condition, or other medical issue that results in deterioration of function, one might want to know that this deterioration is happening, by testing if any high range cognitive abilities are diminishing. This may lead to a method of correction. Currently, only the regular population can be tested regarding smaller deterioration differences in their neurological health relating to intelligence.Since members of the immeasurable range like myself, are immeasurable, I could have small signs of correctable deterioration without having any method at all to convince doctors that something is wrong.

In this way even certain tests lacking validities contribute to the community, and can provide an ethical justification for work, so long as that does not involve change of intellectual history as to the true motives and intentions. I don’t think that test examiners have thought necessarily about this above paragraph, although now that they would be aware of it, having read this interview, we may hear back that these were the original intentions, particularly if there are no already written artifacts that demonstrate that this intention has been communicated. So this information above can be used rightly or fraudulently.

Most members of the public would benefit from truly accurate information on complete self, and anyone who wants to write an autobiography that contains open and honest information about self, wants to include good quality information that constitutes wisdom.This includes information about the mind which must use description and metrics. One cannot omit tools for measurement that are all we have at present and arrive at wisdom that requires it.

But I think seeking self-knowledge is not incompatible with accomplishments and “doing good” for others, and think instead that wisdom blends the two. Highly significant thinking is synthetic and blends knowledge for application. Problems arise that require knowledge from all sorts of interdisciplinary sources, including that which Socrates would recommend self-understanding. The problem solving that results from this synthesis of knowledge combined with problem solving is creative ideation, and recordings of this creative ideation results in accomplishments. Accomplishments that are of good quality and high velocity of significance and ideation relate to dissertative productions that are very frequent, and should include self-knowledge and probably could not be as valuable if they are inapplicable to one’s own knowledge of one’s mind.

As I stated above regarding my career, education, and productivity, and my software system, my ethical productions for the good are expected to greatly outpace productions of others, with great significance, ideation and novelty. All these personal accomplishments are of high importance not only for being intrinsically rewarding, and for helping others, including animals, but because they create a measurable datum for further confirming profound giftedness and self-understanding I continue to seek for myself, at a diminishing rate as I approach full understanding (actually). In the future there will certainly be automated techniques for evaluating this datum for my intelligence, and can be used to compare my intelligence with the intelligence of others, to expand upon joint-self understanding of minds.

In this way productivity will eventually arise in psychometric test results. People have long stated that life itself is a kind of test, and one does have to put in effort in order to have good results. In this way a life of wise productions will be blended with test taking.

Here I would state that we want both and eventually they will both become part of the same datum.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 6: What does a Mensa International membership mean to you?

The Value of the Mensa Membership from My Perspective

There was a quote that I’ll paraphrase from memory, from an African American Astronaut who is a Member of Mensa, who was asked the same question:

“Being a member of Mensa means, to me, that I no longer have to think or talk about how smart I am.”

I have the same view, perhaps for being exposed to his statement, under my interpretation that this creates comforts of self-understanding. One can speak about it if there is value and obviously I have demonstrated the value. For this reason I chose to become a Life Member. It is not the case that I no longer think or write about my intelligence, although my need to prove anything to myself or others has largely vanished. It is done and I no longer need to dwell further on this topic to convince others. I told a recent acquaintance that I did not want to hear any more intelligence related questions from him, because of need to be finished. This article and the perspective above combines to finalize my proof as it relates to comforts of self-understanding.

The second extremely meaningful thing to me about Mensa, and other societies, is the access to extraordinary people, who are not necessarily extraordinary for having attained ephemeral social successes. These are people who one yearns to meet for the sort of mind-matching and communication mentioned above. This is the matching of humor and velocity of significance and ideation. This is a similar mutual benefit that people strive for in academic life, wanting to finally arrive in a collaborative social context for productive dissertative thinking, and nexial business relations, like collaborating with Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, or Elon Musk, naming only a few. Similarly for my desire to work with and combine people like Professors Singer, Tao, Dawkins, and Dennett.

I’ve met valuable people all over, and have come to meet exceptional people quite naturally in my demanding career. But one can simply meet people who are exceptional by joining Mensa. This relates to a mistake my parents made in not introducing me as a child, along with my sister, to Mensans. My brother is also very intelligent and I don’t know his test status, but both he and my parents, and friends, could have expanded our social context to include the highly gifted from the start. I regret that there is a barrier to entry, to get into this group, to talk to certain people, but it is a barrier that is necessary, even if it is arbitrary, for now–that’s until better psychometrics is arrived at and this article has communicated a way to arrive at that. If Mensa is not the group to support expanding inclusiveness on new psychometrics, then other groups will arise, and already many groups of various kinds, work related, school related, or intelligence related do exist to provide a healthy and nurturing social context for children and adults.

I suggest to the reader who might be obstructed from admission (there are people who definitely belong who simply have not gained the paper test scores making it possible to enter), to focus on academic experiences and join groups interested and focused on specific sciences, arts, and experiences, because as soon as you are in these environments, you witness the results of intelligence in beautiful ways, and attention is on quality. When one visits a museum and experiences people interested in museums, quality is apparent. Quality is not always apparent in the high IQ community, and one has to be long exposed to find exceptional people, or exceptional moments, even there, with the exception of meetings in person, which were more consistently rewarding. I mention this to the reader, because genuinely, one finds the same qualities one is hoping for on both pathways, and people are appearing in these groups when they are not appearing in the high IQ societies.

It’s quite a nice experience to witness people’s productions and strengths without having any idea how they would perform being tested, and oftentimes one has no care or concern at all, being quite pleased with the diverse strengths one is witnessing. I don’t know the metrics of my colleagues with whom I collaborated with but that doesn’t stop me from wanting more interraction with them even while I more tightly control my communications to protect my interests and safety.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 7: Do you have any particularly favourite articles from Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society?

Selected Readings of Interest from the Community

I do not read much from the community journals including Noeis, preferring instead to read extensively materials that are often trusted and are covered in course curricula already within academia. This does not mean that there is not much that is of high quality, and I have taken steps to ensure that some specific individuals who have become deceased have had their websites archived and preserved. Expecting that none would care much about the preservation of their writings, which were numerous, I anticipated the eventual erasing of their contents from web servers and blogging applications, that are less safe from protection as library contents. When people die some others only take brief actions to say kind things, but few take actions to preserve their work. One particular deceased individual who was like-minded and very supportive, had his website vanish as expected, and for years now I’ve held his materials waiting to republish them charitably and anonymously. His work has little to do with my own, but I think people need ongoing access to it indefinitely.This relates to my efforts to make certain publications permanent beyond what is currently possible for any document type. I have efforts underway to ensure that publications don’t vanish in geological time, and am aware that will likely not be successful, since the earth is impermanent; but I will am trying to take actions to provide at least a partial solution. This concerns all human information. My work is not deletable presently. Even if my online Book and Journal were attacked, all of it would survive. My own efforts in living autobiography call to mind this effort to preserve the works of other deceased people, but are not specifically about that in my primary motivations that relate to sharing my own mind extensively and accurately. However doing the work with my living autobiography does relate to my desire to see the works of others preserved and communicated correctly, and not only of these members who have passed away, but other historical figures who are highly intelligent whom we are misinformed about via simple advertising and propaganda. Living figures like those in the Acknowledgements will eventually pass away and if I’m living, I will work towards making sure their credibility is preserved in my basic communications. These deceased members of the community were, who are of higher intelligence than the Mensa range, are some of the few who understood the intention of my work, and exhibited comprehension, kindness in communication, and stewardship. Some have provided avenues of publication. I am very happy to have met these people while they were living, which is now. Not all of my contacts of importance to me are mentioned in my Acknowledgements for good cause, because it relates to some of these archiving efforts that need to remain anonymous for a period, and keeping them unacknowledged my not be my long term strategy for protecting their anonymity.

Returning to the point about my preferred reading, typically my chosen materials relate to my personal projects of interest that relate to a number of fields, and have a specificity these days to specific research questions I have. This is the cause of my reading the work of Professor Tao. Outside of my research questions, and in my reading history, I gobble books from preferred authors in which I always find value, like from Professors Singer, Dennett, and Dawkins, but typically my interests are so interrelational that this desire to read their works for personal enjoyment ties well to my research projects. My selected fun reading is always academic and from highly intelligent figures.

Regarding research: I don’t do much of that finding it unnecessary and inappropriate to my mind and for those who are immeasurably intelligent. Instead of using my time reading other works, I spend more time creatively writing and reading my own. I’m not very information seeking already having gotten much of what I required from earlier reading. Like a child I am usually finding deep significance in little facts gleaned from experience, and I synthetically relate these to very large sets of interconnections in my life. Logically analyzing, I know what connects and what doesn’t with a strong sense of reality, and blend it with my own behavior so it results in a new me. A new me as far as growth and healthful neurological brain changes create storage deltas, resulting in obvious day-to-day changes in thought and action. Notice this is required for profound giftedness but is only touched upon by science in a way currently that is not metrically comprehensible in psychometrical tests that don’t cover days, weeks, years and a lifetime of nervous system development. Works like mine do provide new opportunities for measuring this. The measurable change is in the velocity of significance and ideation established in life artifacts figuring into the living autobiography falling within a total earth data and history. The exhibited velocity of significance relates to aging and establishes my own works as having plenty of growth potential for providing value in the new edition of this book, that others might want. As others get older, their significance in thinking improves too, oftentimes, and as long as they can remember being young, their shares may be of more interest than those writers who are mentally younger. The reader may recognize from some history of IQ that the ‘quotient’ part of IQ was mental age over chronological age. One reading this may not think the writer would be 42 years old, and this writing is not that dense. This document can be fed into tools that analyze writers for anticipated age, and using such tools that have at least some usefulness, I anticipate the age calculated would be much older than my actual age. As I age velocity continues and accelerates for significance. In this way I expect new works to be more worthwhile than some earlier works. The new edition of this work will be more significant and meaningful than this first edition.

There are some few readings from the High Intelligence Community that I have been exposed to, that were very interesting during the period of elevated interest from when I first joined various societies, and these have come from figures who wrote on topics that seemed especially relevant to my characteristics, and came from supposed members of the immeasurable range, who are themselves figures I know for certain are intelligent but am uncertain as to their actual psychometrical status. Despite this the articles from these writers had personal influence since the contents do indicate high velocity of significance and ideation, even though they are written in a less academic format. Conversation of high quality does not need to be academically conveyed. Sometimes reading these conversational writings are like learning from like-minded grandmothers and grandfathers who have opted in old age to discontinue the scholastic mode of expression.

If I could afford to carry large textbooks from the highest quality professors I would, too, because those contain the most compressed summaries of current research, and providing linkings to articles that are already prioritized for importance. I don’t like researching much because of the difficulty of actually locating the contents that searching says exists but doesn’t provide oftentimes. This is true even having access to research locations through Harvard University or Google Scholar. Research is often returning unuseful studies as well. Digital copies of articles are also not really part of a sound digital strategy for my particular lifestyle which includes offgrid living with few reasonable energy related strategies for recharging, which relates to global poverty in my studies of The Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping which I keep ultralight. Some might say you can have a library in a device, but I have thought about that extensively and only agree in part. Digital books fundamentally fail on user interface design, where books excel. That’s in the flipping through pages and rapid surveying of contents. I like textbooks and large reference materials in my hands and think the Encylopedia Brittanica in a digital format would be a form of torture. For research my preference would be a general equivalency of tenured professorship status and residency, to be near the library’s journal stacks. But as a continual traveller with no residency moving about internationally, I find other ways to find answers.

I have not done much reading from the journal of the Mega Society, but I found at one point one article that was enjoyable, explaining my life to an extent, and that article was entitled The Too Many Aptitudes Problem, written by Hank Pfeffer. This article is an example of one that is not of academic format but one can tell is of good significance, is well considered, and seems to confirm a large amount of experience, in short expression. This is important because the profoundly gifted may choose to never be formally educated, and what they say* may exceed what one can receive in formal academic publications.

An article that has had a greater impact, was the article from Grady Towers, not from Noesis, but from the Prometheus society. This article discusses a topic related to the maladaptivity results of the Terman study, in a similar way to the article written by Michael Ferguson, entitled The Inappropriately Excluded. Each of these articles are are somewhat informal and provide a conveyance of good significance nevertheless, also corroborating diverse experiences I’ve had personally. Each of these articles to an extent influenced my views regarding the wants many people have, like myself, of attaining powerful roles in order to execute upon ideas, and to meet people who are of better quality to collaborate with, for creating a normal work environment, and for balancing this with financial needs or frugality to create that leisure time that is required for pursuing a large assortment of interesting personal projects that are too interdisciplinary usually for including in one’s employment. In my early twenties I had already decided independently that this was worthwhile and planned my life on this basis, achieving better than expected fusion of social and business goals, and work environment because I could create that for myself, and leisure time for more intrinsically rewarding pursuits. Although I knew this well already and executed on my plans successfully, before my plans were totally complete I encountered these works, and they did help. From my conversations with Mr. Ferguson I learned that he was financially successful, traveling and retired, like myself, although he was much more advanced in age. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to chat with him on a variety of topics and had an exchange with him on his blog over the value of skull measurements for estimating intelligence. He has a work on that called H. Macrocephalus. I disagreed with his primary thesis but this caused renewed interest in the need to recognize brain morphology which does relate to cranial capacity, and total brain volume does relate somehow to having opportunity for growing a more comprehensively developed nervous system. This topic already was covered in my studies of Archaeology and Anthropology in college, where the increasing skull size of pre-human and human ancestors is used to estimate relative level of evolutionary development. Without the importance of advancing cranial capacity we would have no cause for thinking other animals with small brains, without observing them, would have lesser learning abilities. One can read my comments within that article starting at the datetime ” Anonymous February 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM“. At the time of my writing this was not anonymous, under my former name”Matt Cavanaugh”, apparently because I deleted the associated Google account used to establish the conversation, that uses a Google technology. We had a long exchange together there and the conversation may be of some interest.

Exposure to these works somewhat created the same confirming experience as with the joining certain High IQ societies, as I learned that others were thinking as I thought, even if not all that I read was entirely new to me.

Also covered in these articles is the likelihood of being purged from work from being overly intelligent, and I experienced the risk of this a number of times, and active plans for it on one occasion. I will discuss this topic at another time in either an expansion of this essay or within my living autobiography

These two articles together are part of what I imagine to be somewhat necessary reading for those who have interest in understanding the minds of folks who belong to these high intelligence societies, or those who belong to no society at all, but are functioning independently in the world without any group support. This is because they have or will face challenges that require them to make decisions like that discussed in the earlier question, that covered the need to either commit to frugality and focusing one one’s own pursuits without necessarily having any acknowledgement or widespread attainment, or to “jump over the hurdles” created by academia and business, using up valuable time, to expand upon one’s freedom to more fully gain notability and power relating to desired goals and achievements.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 8: You wrote an interesting article entitled “How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?” (Cavanaugh, 2018). You bring forward individuals like Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell, Paul Cooijmans, Grady Towers, and societies such as the Mega Society, the Giga Society, and Mensa International. By and large, these are well-known within the high-IQ communities, of which I sit out in the Oort Cloud with a telescope making notes enjoying the show and sending occasional correspondence for interviews with members of these communities. I am not a formal member of these communities. I have contributed to publications or had positions for which I’m grateful, but no formal legitimate memberships because of no formal test to determine the merit of the matter or deep abiding interest at that level, as some societies do not require test scores, permit second test scores, or utilize, widely, alternative tests with varying degrees of legitimacy in the measurement of the psychological construct of g, general intelligence. As far as I know, those societies with strict mainstream intelligence test requirements are Mensa International and the Triple Nine Society, especially with Mensa International having formal testing sites online or, pre-coronavirus, invigilation stations all over the world. These are important to consider, internationally, even sophisticated frauds exist in the high-IQ communities with a grotesque example in the multi-level marketer (scammer), human trafficker, and cult leader Keith Raniere with the organization NXIVM where he was known as “Vanguard.” To a more on-point tune and as a point of clarification to start us off here today, with Feynman’s declared IQ of 126 (no S.D. mentioned), as stated in the article, what is the factual status of Feynman’s declared IQ in contrast to professional commentary or considerations of his mathematical abilities?

Question 8 Part I: Regarding the portion on Historical figures:

The Suspension of Inquiry Concerning the Intelligence of Historical Figures

Section Introduction

In prior questions we have covered already the topics of stringency of measurement and the process of admissions in various organizations like those of the High Intelligence Community and Colleges. I covered those topics extensively earlier because of awareness of the relationship with this particular question. Also we have covered the value of Mensa, the value of testing for self-understanding, and the topic of the value of focusing one’s efforts on one’s personal development and societal benefits in activities outside of the seeking of self-knowledge of intelligence, and ultimate unknowability of one’s intelligence at present due to incomplete testing in general. It was discussed why not being in Mensa is not necessarily an indicator that one does not have special strengths worth developing, including mental traits that may exceed in quality those of many folks in the High IQ Community. In our next question, we switch to a discussion of Highly Intelligent scammers, so I will only touch on that briefly here where it appears to have relevance and where it seems preparations for that conversation would be beneficial.

The focus on this particular section will be in two parts: first the evaluation of historical figures and their intelligence, and then the evaluation of current day figures. A theme that I want to use to make my view very clear here relates to my desire to support people in their wants to make their lives accurate. I don’t distinguish between living people and the deceased on this point and prefer greatly not to fabricate anything about individuals, such that recordings about them become eventually false or mythical.

Main Answer

Impressive deceased individuals leaving evidence of profound realizations and productive eminence do not leave me with questions about their smartness, although I am concerned about hypothetical scores concocted by those interested, that amount to frivolous fabrications. While confirmed writings, art, diagrams, and mathematical formulae may at some time be adequate for AI or forensic intelligence measuring systems to provide useful rank-ordered scores outside of any testing by a proctored psychologist, I believe existing numbers for notable historical figures were invented and are untrustworthy. This is known simply because intelligence tests did not yet exist.

Online one finds interesting YouTube videos in which figures are ranked with false IQ scores, disrespecting their histories and biographies with inflations. IQ is already very high at a score of 120. In these videos we learn that Goethe had an IQ of well over 200, that Gauss had an IQ in the same vicinity, and that figures like Aristotle, Plato, Newton, Einstein, Sidis, Tesla and many other figures had particular IQs that again, are inflated fabrications that are well over what they need to be to account for their works. The reality is that for each and every historical figure that antedated intelligence scoring living before psychology existed at all (it was combined with Philosophy), there is a misattribution of an IQ score. This simply distorts history, and botches the biographical record. These are figures we care about deeply for their contributions to us and the public is willing to entertaining false summaries about their mental capacities.

It is worth noting that few have read Albert Einstein’s autobiography, which is the last thing he wrote. I read it and it is included in the book “Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist” in the series on the Lives of the Living Philosophers, a series intended to give living eminent figures a chance to write about themselves and respond to critics, while authors were still around. This writing is technical and autobiographical and clarifies certain personal commitments. For example, few recognize he was an Athiest and this is made clear in his own words. He says nothing of course about his own psychometrics because they don’t exist. This means we cannot provide a reasonable score to his intelligence at all, and can only go by his artifacts, which as a rule are incomprehensible to the general population. Assigning him any number jeopardizes his interests, his history, and probably his unspoken last will and testament. My living [last will and testament](http://www.mattanaw.org%5D will be written into my Book and Journal.

We have very little information about all of these figures, even if we think we have a good portion of their corpus of writing, because they cannot be interviewed and do not have living brains to test.

The case is similar with people who are still historical who lived more recently, after modern Psychology came to exist, and after the advent of psychometric testing. In the question Mr. Feynman was asked about, but I would like to refrain even from speaking much about his particular intelligence, because of several reasons. Firstly, if someone were to place in front of me a document that was supposedly a primary source medical artifact, indicating his IQ score, I would not immediately believe it. I would have to do extensive research, that I did not do and would have difficulty doing, to confirm the veracity of the document. False documents are easy to create, as I witnessed in court, and easily one could produce a document to malign Mr. Feynman. Doing real historical investigation, one would definitely have uncertainty about a document indicating a low(ish) score for Mr. Feynman. Historically, a figure like him could have had hateful people who could create a false impression of his abilities using fake documents.

It should be immediately recognized that I am quite ignorant about Mr. Feynman’s medical record. Perhaps he spoke for himself about his purported intelligence score, and in that case, I would give it much more credibility, but even then he has not been tested as extensively as I have with a range of tests, and I have not seen a readout of his subtest results which may indicate extreme giftedness despite a score that might be lower than expected. There are simply too many uncertainties about his scores and a professional of history and psychology should refrain from speculating further given the dearth of reliable information, and admit that the passage of time has converted this topic into the unknowable.

Historical figures can informally be estimated regarding their giftedness by an evaluation of their various productions, and his productions would immediately create prominence in his intelligence even if we decide we don’t care about his scores. The informal method of analysis I recommend in this paper for estimating range of giftedness could be applied somewhat to him if there is sufficient written record covering a range of skills including his physico-mathematical skills, his written skills, and the quality of his verbal communication in his lectures. Mr. Feynman may not score evenly on all these domains, and additionally his breadth of knowledge may be more narrow and specialized than may be appreciated. This may also be true of other historical figures. I think people highly underestimate the breadth of capacity of people who are exceptionally and profoundly gifted, and in order to really appraise any individual for the interrelationships in their brain matter, at a minimum they have to be able to discuss a very large range of topics to see what relationships they come up with, and to estimate the total significance of those relationships. I’ve seen a video on YouTube in which I saw he was extremely significant in his conversation even with a basic interviewer, and had a very strong propensity to powerful ideation, but I still feel there is too much missing to ascribe him an IQ score, or a range, and in any case this is what metrical testing provides. Without a formal psychometric test, I would have to rely on conversation using my informal approach, but in order to do that I have to be speaking or conversing in text with a living person, and if that is not possible, it is forever impossible to do.

Another aspect of the analysis of the intelligence of historical figures, which is applicable also to living figures, is an appraisal of the overall comprehensibility of their productions, which communicate great significance at high velocity. Mathematics, diagrams, programming, architectural designs, blueprints, can all communicate a very great amount of information that may be novel, interesting, comprehensible, but hard for others to understand. Historically, works like Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (“Principia”) would have created astonishment for their precision, novelty, and density of thought. This work of Newton’s is not incredibly long, but obviously has profound significance and ingenuity. Its expression is diagrammatic and mathematic, and does not consume much space. If a work can generate very great commentary but not be too long, it is a sign that that work had very great idea-density, and applicability to the real world.

Who can comprehend the work is of interest because after publication, typically only a few people will become interested enough to read it and correspond with the author. These readers themselves may be interested, but it would be true that not all would understand, and of those who do understand, what they understand may not be totally analogical to what the author, like Newton, would think about it. The presumption is that Newton would have had many relationships in mind regarding connections to his work that are not present in the work. Newton, evaluating the minds of others, would use something akin to the informal process of testing for significance and velocity of ideas. If ideas from other correspondence concerning his works are novel, or cover his own ideas, it would indicate a strong mental analogy between himself and the reader. This would likely be a cause for wanting to collaborate.

In one particular area of research and publication in which I’m working, I encountered the works of Bertrand Russell, in his Principia Mathematica, as a Philosophy Undergrad in the early 2000’s, and Gödel’s proof. After being exposed to these documents, many years later, I encountered Donald Knuth’s Art of Computer Programming. My particular work concerns the foundation of mathematics in logic, and a theory of a new architectural foundation of computer systems. This theory would change how we think of mathematics as a whole, how we think of physics and the sciences, how we understand computing, and the relationship to the limitations of computing as it relates to reality. I’ve published some thoughts and comments worth sharing in the intelligence community a number of times, on subtopics that connect somewhat tangentially but interestingly to this theory. An example is on the topic about the final verification of continuous movement, and to what extent movement is discrete, which is verifiable computationally, in comparison to the view that motion is infinitesimally continuous, which is non-computable, and discussed what it means for mathematics. A work I encountered in this effort is Terrence Tao’s Analysis One, which has some anticipations of my efforts on my differing formal proof, and shows some support for Mr. Bertrand Russell’s logical atomism, contra Gödel.

The works of Russell and Whitehead, and Gödel, would be totally incomprehensible to the public, and in my review of materials, I think it true that nobody living understands these documents and their significance. Currently there are thoughts that Kurt Gödel has debunked Russell and Whitehead in various ways, but my reading of commentaries indicate that commenters uniformly do not understand either author’s works! This includes books written for the purpose of explaininghis work! This implies that even those who claim to be reading the documents do not understand the documents. Even in the High Intelligence community, when the topic of Gödel comes up, I see regurgitation about what Gödel has achieved, but close inspection of Gödel’s paper shows academic sloppiness and numerous issues. It’s part of my work and research to bring this to some clarity through my personal interests. I have also noticed, in Analysis I, by Tao, that there may also be some skipping over of Principia Mathematica and Gödel, but an explanation is that that is a paper, that while it appears to me to be doing work on formal proof contra Gödel, is still targeted for instruction of students. Mr. Terrence Tao has IQ scores online listed to be in the 200s, and of course I would apply skepticism to that given the contents of the remainder of this paper, but there is no doubt at all that he is extremely intelligent, and he is repeatedly recognized within the American Mathematical Association in which I’m a member. He has attained professional eminence already, and mathematics itself is a conveyor of significance at high velocity done well, and I’ve personally benefited from his work on Analysis I.

Returning to the point however Gödel’s work is extremely complex and I suspect no one understands it, and I think this is why it stills stands as a work people think has no faults. I’m finding faults and will convey them in the near future, but his work is still brilliant. The point however is that it is conveys so much that it is largely incomprehensible to everyone, and this is due to a combination of his high intelligence and sloppiness; whereas some would say it is only of high intelligence or even greater intelligence. This is untrue.

Russell and Whitehead’s work is very long, and looks like an alien work of logical symbol’s rewriting mathematics up to and past calculus. When I say it is ‘alien’ I mean it is alien even to those who would understand modern formal logic. I once had a scan of all three volumes, but no longer having that, I have to content myself with Principia to ’56, which covers only the first to the 56’s item. The cause of this is truncation is that there is no expectation that anyone will understand any of it, guessing. The entire work is not something I would expect anyone to understand in its entirety.

Many are exposed to the work of Russell and Whitehead in popular formats, especially Russell, since he published nearly or actually 100 volumes, but would not know that Principia Mathematica was very important or as complex as it is in expression. Reading the popular works of either author would lead one to think that they have less capacity in the velocity of significance and ideation than they really have, and that is the importance of surveying an author’s works completely before estimating intelligence. A single omission of Principia Mathematica would lead to a misappraisal.

That these are such complex works indicates certainly profound giftedness and the inability of anyone to understand Gödel, for Gödel’s writing, or for being unable to research the work of Russell that Gödel contradicts and depends on for his proof, shows that the failure to understand them also indicates their profundity. They are certainly profoundly and exceptionally gifted, using the informal approach of the conveyance of significance at high velocity. But also with this is an estimation as to who could comprehend it.

I give these examples because they relate directly to my research and writing interests, but one could also mention other works, and that work mentioned from Donald Knuth is also one that I think is largely unapproachable by anyone. This work figures into my connection of the prior topic with creation of an alternative system’s architecture and required design, and required algorithms. Knuth does not cite Russell, Whitehead, or Gödel in this context but they relate as I see it in my project. Of course those in electrical engineering, logic, mathematics, and computer science would know the relationship if sufficiently advanced.

While we can use this kind of thinking to conclude these authors are extremely and profoundly gifted, assigning them an IQ score includes a motive for fabrication. I would not be inclined to ascribe to any of them IQ scores. Professors Tao and Knuth are both still alive, and each could be measured into the immeasurability range very likely, at least on IQ subtests, if they haven’t already. I’m very disinclined to want to attribute or believe IQ scores on the basis of tests that are not normed appropriately, even those that claim to have statistical methods of extension that make this unnecessary. It is mentioned later that the Prometheus society itself does not do this, and relies on a non-IQ test that has the norming, presumably because that society has the same view on testing I do, except I later criticize the MAT as a test to use on various grounds. I’m content with calling Prof. Tao immeasurable, even if that means I have to say his score is one that is a floor to his actual intelligence, which means he scored high enough to be unknowable regarding his intelligence. But he is alive and could do other kinds of direct neuroscientific testing which I think would be more interesting and better for the trajectory of psychometrics. The section on living figures is next, so I will discuss more there. Regarding the deceased figures Whitehead, Russell, and Gödel, we don’t have psychometric test scores, from my understanding but with no additional research, and there is no way to provide a number. I would refrain from ascribing a number again, because I think that comes from a motive of fabrication.

My response here more generally is that I think we need to suspend judgement on the intelligence of historical figures in which we have insufficient information out of respect for their history. Later, as we are better able to use artifacts, we may be able to estimate by comparison of works, but I think this is still disrespectful since they do not have living brains to test. The dislike we have of intelligence measures will only be removed when we have the ability to test living brains at high accuracy and with great comprehensiveness. This is something we can never do for the deceased. Even if they have an extremely large body of works, there is a difference between those works, and the complexity of function happening over a lifetime. Bertrand Russell himself moved on from writing Principia to writing only popular books in amazing volume. But he may have continued his mathematical thinking all of his life. If we appraise him only by his works, we would be under the impression that his thinking was only in a communicative style that was for everyone else’s comprehension. But his Principia Mathematica is incomprehensible to all!

It is not clear if Principia Mathematica’s contents would provide a pattern that would be easy or hard to the authors, even if it were decided that one would appraise their minds by the very hardest content only. Even if specific contents are used by other author’s like Newton’s Principia for Newton, it would not tell of Newton’s mental endurance.

One is not necessarily exceptionally and profoundly gifted if there is insufficient endurance, and the velocity of significance and ideation should involve great endurance. Once should be able to keep it going easily, indicating this is how one usually is, and not how one is rarely. One is efficient in one’s thinking to stay comfortable. A trait of the immeasurable is that they enjoy thinking about what only appears difficult to others. This book was written in 11 days, and was fun and easy to write.

Here I must gratuitously speak concerning my own endurance because my Book and Journal, that although growing in complexity and inclusiveness in materials, started as a simple blog to have sufficient content to support the design. Now that the design is in place, it can store any and all content I have in my possession. This includes work for my customers that I can redact. It would not have been possible to have as many customers I have had and as many projects, working as an architect and earlier an engineer, becoming finally Chief Architect, and later a trusted executive guiding businesses at the C-Suite level, if I was not at a productivity level that is unreachable for others. I’ve produced many thousands of lines of code in a number of programming languages, many technical design documents, and thousands of pages of presentations and architectural recommendations with sophisticated visual plans. I’ve created entire solutions consisting of distributed machines, including all the back-end and required front-end programming, architectures, deployments and tests. This establishes endurance particularly since it was all done before my current age of 42.

Colleagues have witnessed my live typing at a rate that is impossible not looking at my screen, with results on the display, of a combination of new content and what was heard, from people who were in the same room at the same time, including directors and executives. The rate and endurance of what is produced creates awe and fear in customers. But I’m socially adept so this is kindly managed, and so we typically have great relationships with much mutual respect.

I’ve been the only person invited to provide vendor neutral and agnostic cross-sectional organizational analysis, and have had my results which were often hundreds of pages enacted, with my business and technical stewardship and mentorship being required. These were complex but feasible and did require organizational change, sometimes globally. Some examples include for AbbVie, Petco, Spark New Zealand, and Scripps Networks for FoodNetwork, HGTV, Travel Channel, DiY Channel, etc (Now partly acquired by Discovery Channel), BC Pensions Corporation and Adobe Systems. I welcome readers to view some of my executive corporate recommendations.

A differentiator that exists between myself and Mr. Tao, taking him as an example, is that Mr. Tao produces technical mathematical papers with a rapidity I could not currently match, and may never match. However, my Book and Journal will contain mathematics that is foundational, combining the results of the authors above and providing new mathematics. I have delivered formulae which were required for decision making for customers, a good example being one related to scaling of images in the document scanning application for Fidelity Investments that is of permanent utility, creating a competitive advantage. My book additions will show the velocity of significance of an assortment of content visuospatial, mathematical, verbal and diagrammatic, but it is admitted that currently the mathematical output would not match someone like Prof. Knuth or Mr. Tao. But what is communicated is that what will be shown is an exhibition of the full range of technical talents that can be had, and perhaps artistic creations, time permitting, because the author does have talent in the traditional visual arts, but requires some time to develop upon them. Musicality is also to be included, as I am also extremely talented in both playing instruments and in writing score.

Both Tao and Russell’s extreme productivity indicate they both have and had dissertative thinking. Dissertative thinking means they each have a very high velocity of significance and ideation into writing. Not only were they actively writing many books and papers, their thinking is of the same sort that initially generated their first doctoral theses. The implication is in their own time, doing everyday activities, they are experiencing dense novel thoughts which have characteristics of readiness for rapid dissertation writing, even if they do not write anything. The implication is that each could have many doctorates and not only one. In the upper echelons of intelligence, there are a number of exemplars of people who pursued many degrees and have more than one doctorate. But the cost of achieving the doctorate is a time expenditure that pulls them away from leisurely project work, and one does not need to ask these people if they feel any cost of energy for pursuing the doctorates taking steps within organizations. They would. They and I choose to remain in academia for instrumental reasons, and to gain authority in a field, and an audience. Admittedly there are benefits to remaining in organizations but the slowness of progress is strongly felt, and if one is aware that one could do more work if one could do it entirely independently. It is somewhat akin to reading as much as one likes versus reading only during having a courseload. For people such as these, it would be to their benefit to have a pathway to allow for faster productions of their dissertative thoughts into equivalency dissertations, or allow for articles and books to be converted to equivalency dissertations, to formally be awarded a number of doctorates. If this existed it would not be incompatible with receiving many doctorates even while formally doing work in a Ph.D program. Since I received my G.E.D., I’m aware that equivalencies already do exist for diplomas, and for High School a GED is a substitute for four years of work. This is a very long period of time when one considers what can be accomplished in that time, and a GED can be obtained very quickly. I am aware that an option existed for me to obtain a GED early, and I’m certain I was able to perform in elementary school nearly well enough to obtain it, and would have been able if I engaged in independent study outside of school. Likewise dissertative thinking in young minds could enable one to obtain doctorates while still young. For those who with immeasurable intelligence, this is almost something that is necessary to facilitate the level of growth that would benefit them and society. More interestingly, if one could write a dissertation as a child, one has a doctorate and has finished with grad school, which means they obtained all degrees from nothing to everything. Some might complain that general education is necessary too, but it may be possible to write multiple dissertations to establish the generality of an adult who may not yet be a professional. Additionally, if they obtain a doctorate, it is an indication of existing generality to a degree and existing capacity to attain generality independently. Contrasted with a person closer to the average who obtains an elevated degree, there may be a loss of understanding of earlier studies, and studies unapplied. So it appears that children with minds like Tao or Russell would benefit from having a pathway such as this. I am productive enough to probably write multiple dissertations a year and would have benefited from having an option such as this instead of pursuing many degrees, at very significant time and financial costs.

I need to be clear that I do not have a goal to simply be fast and that’s important. The Book and Journal is an outlet I have for communicating in a rapidity that I already find natural, and this relates to rapidity of thought, in high significance. Customers witnessing my skill would also test to the facile nature of my productivity and to complexity. The facile ability to communicate complexity rapidly is something others utilize to attest to a person’s witnessed intelligence informally already, because there is a perception of endurance and easyness for what is perceived as hard or incomprehensible for others. My typing speed must be witnessed by others as both easy for me but impossible for the rest. It is performed while guiding and steering meetings and conducting questioning of numerous individuals oftentimes.

A cause for the deliberate eclecticness in my publications is to have an extensive set of information in which to understand intelligence, and to exhibit my natural polymathic inclinations. The volume of the publication and the frequency and speed will indicate velocity of significance and demonstrate publication endurance. The publication endurance does not come in the way of having a much more active and fulfilling life of travel and enjoyment than nearly anyone.

In the future, as recorded artifacts are increased for each person in the public in digital format, such that the domain of their interests and breadth of thought includes recordings, in writing, audio and video, that is authenticated, I think we can use an equivalent of the informal process using the concept of significance and velocity of ideas, translated into AI/ML or other real software not pretending to be such, in conjunction with predictive models about what a huge sample of nervous systems are able to produce along lifespans, to finally estimate the intelligence of historical figures, which will soon be us. I intend to produce for my Book and Journal a larger than normally possible sample of data, on myself, to make it more likely to arrive at that scenario. Given the trajectory of science and technology using my experienced judgement as an elite technologist, I think it likely if I live to an age of around 80, some time between now and then, I can use the data in my dataset to actually estimate my IQ further.

While I am quite satisfied with my immeasurable intelligence scores, I would prefer that they are measurable. In the future, I may be willing to have direct measures of my brain while performing work tasks, and while not, to get an overview of my nervous system. I’d like to have a range of visual artifacts, and data sets, that correspond to my actual brain morphology and neurochemistry as it lives. I’ve stated at one point that I would greatly like to have my entire life videotaped in slow motion at maximum fidelity with all information included, including private information, since I’m a highly moral person without a need to protect any personal information. I see myself as a priest and monk of naturalism and moral philosophy and exhibit priestly behavior. This would provide additionally a complete natural record of my biology if it were possible. I don’t think that will be possible but I do think that actual physical testing of my brain to create additional metrics about my intelligence will be usable in conjunction with my writings and productions and we will arrive perhaps at a very comprehensive picture of my own intelligence.

Thinking this way greatly increases our sense of lack of information regarding our own lives, but greater still the lives of historical figures. Being near to Mr. Feynman’s time, it is clear that everyone’s artifacts will be minimal at the time of death, and only later in the future after our deaths, will some few be taking actions like those I’m taking for maximizing communication into writing, to create what is approaching complete self-record. Since I’m writing and not slow motion recording my nervous system and body in-context, I know I will still be very far from what is possible, but the innovativeness of the attempt is still obvious, and the work performed still for the benefit of myself and others, including these historical figures, because finally we can enjoy their works without pretending to know more than what the complete record can convey to us about them.

Here we have a good transition into the discussion of living figures, who overlap with history in that the state of technology hasn’t aided us much in a way that facilitates easy testing. We can see that the massive difference between historical figures and living figures is that they are alive, and we can ask them questions and communicate them, and test their minds more directly as far as they are willing to have them voluntarily tested. They are also voluntarily and unwittingly involuntarily sending their communications through systems that record them, that will later be tested in ways that they did not ask for that will include intelligence testing. Their complete body of productions will include not only their academic writings and writings with sophisticated intent, but all their writings that they have shared with software systems, that software companies will be able to correctly retain and relate to them. Much information will still be lost through inadequate technical designs of systems like those in social media, and in email, and in systems “listening in”, but much will be retained and would be usable for future testing on a much larger set of artifacts.

Understanding the informational needs for more comprehensive understanding of psychometrical measures, I think social media will be found to be a very basic style of communication that will be insufficient for most to be really scored appropriately, and for all who would be tested thusly, I think we should refrain from ascribing an IQ score, and thus protect their histories in the same way that we can protect people who are like us but are deceased.

Answer 8 Part II: The Evaluation of Living Figures

Earlier we talked extensively on limitations of testing and I want to call this to mind as we briefly cover the evaluation of living figures. But I also don’t want to reveal my related answer as it relates to identification of scammers, which is the final question of the interview.

I think it very important to be as honest and truthful descriptively about people as we can, without adding additional speculation. Living people will eventually become historical figures, and the deceased should not have their lives altered from their truth.

I have some writing in preparation regarding other Psychological tests conveying a typology of personality, and my view regarding these tests is that an incredibly detailed case study for any individual, using specifics about behavior and thoughts is more important than a system that falsely categorizes. I think the Myers-Briggs and Big-5 tests are examples that provide some fabrication regarding who someone is in a summary way. I think short sentence and phrased diagnostics create categorizations that may be useful at times, but they also provide a too-brief picture of who someone really is. While there can be value such diagnostics can be very damaging, and cause one to have a wrong idea about one’s own accurate self-description. Consider someone who is misdiagnosed with a personality disorder and comes to believe it.

Likewise ascribing an intelligence score to someone with insufficient testing, or an insufficient range of tests can give the wrong idea, both to the self and to others. What is worse than this, however, is entirely fabricated numbers applied to individuals. I have spoken above about how historical figures are simply given large numbered IQ scores to make them appear especially eminent, but these numbers are not accurate descriptions of people who have not and could not be tested, or have unconfirmed scores if only recently deceased! The same is true for living figures for whom tests do not exist or for whom test scores are unconfirmable. Prominent politicians, gamers, chess-players, authors, artists, actors, writers and others are simply given fabricated scores, often consisting of round numbers that are very high, like 200, and these are obviously false. They distort the people these numbers are applied to, such that our historical record of them, including primary source materials in newspapers and in the media, create incorrect hearsay biographies.

One can note that most living figures who do very well and are very successful rarely tell their intelligence scores because either they do not expect to impress, or they do not want to share for various risks. Typically the former is the case, but High Intelligence scores are not that rare. Extremely profound giftedness is rare. If figures who are famous really have these IQ scores I think ultimately they would want to “show and tell”, but the rarity is so great that it is atypical that any particular famous person would have these scores. When we hear of extremely high intelligence scores they are usually coming from people who are within High IQ communities who are wanting to share with others their special gifts and traits, when they are being honest and not exaggerating to excess. However, I think many exaggerate extravagantly. I think the reader can think of many reasons why people would exaggerate their intelligence, particularly since almost anyone in the public thinks themselves to be special holders of truth somehow.

Those who exaggerate and ascribe to themselves, as living individuals, super great intelligence, have a few serious issues to deal with. Firstly, they must continue to protect their story even if it is false or has serious defects. This is how self-ascription of incorrect scores can result in a very large “pack of lies” that the person will carry through their entire biography. Their IQ score, self applied, creates a “wrong miniature summary description” of their mind and life behavior. If someone tells others they have a score they do not have, then they are certainly falsifying much more than their supposed intelligence. They can make their life inexplicable, such that the only way to correct it is to give the true information, that would correspond cleanly with the actual life lived.

In the evaluation of a living figure’s intelligence we do need as much information as we can have that consists of real artifacts ref: Living Autobiography, that includes demonstration of society membership, and productions that both seem to match up. If there is a lopsidedness in the intelligence demonstrable in lack of productions, then additional information about certain deficiencies apart from intelligence need to be shared in artifact form. Trusted societies like college admissions provide some trustworthy verification of claims, and we can use things like Mensa IDcards, and other membership cards, to get confirmation. Better still are actual test results from the medical and psychological practitioners, that share the actual scores, although it is understood too that this constitutes protected health information. Soon in the future I will be releasing more of my public health information that includes my actual psychometric scores from my psychometricians/psychologists, to go further than most to share society memberships and the actual test results. Anyone who has very high intelligence can eventually share this information to have the life artifacts needed to really corroborate stories, so they can become historical figures, who we really have data about.

For those who are showing tests that don’t indicate immeasurability, but measurable rank ordered FSIQ in the very high range, without statistical norming, from rare tests employing extrapolation, or from tests created by individuals, I think we need to be more cautious. I think it is much more likely, since these are atypical, and unpopular, not often used by psychometricians, that fakes that are rare will still convince. If these tests are shared, how are they cross checked for veracity? Additionally, I think they are largely erroneous. I think it is much better to utilize standardized, highly popular intelligence tests, and be satisfied despite there being an inability to confirm actual maximum performance. These tests will indicate immeasurability but will be well understood and more easily cross-checked.

Coming from the field of Psychology, there is also the risk of deals between psychologists for propping up scores, scoring oneself in a fabricated way very highly, and so on. These practitioners have the actual tests and the test scoring books, and can produce reports that are fake. Psychologists who are colleagues can easily work together to fake tests. This will be more possible to fake if more rare and unconfirmable from sources. Some would be discovered to care so much about inflating their IQ scores that they would use their giftedness to obtain degrees enabling them to pretend the very greatest giftedness of all!

Another issue with the evaluation of tests is that certain authority figures within IQ societies can ask for test results from others for admission, but then utilize the same papers, alter them, and show scores that are inflated for themselves. In this way leaders of certain smaller societies can dupe others into thinking they have incredibly high intelligence, simply from altering already received intelligence tests. I have been asked by a leader of one society to provide my intelligence scores, and in retrospect almost certainly those would have been used for nefarious reasons and potentially would have been utilized to create a false report with inflated scores, using a real test result.

At present it is somewhat insurmountable to totally control for and verify the authenticity of original test documents, but in the meantime checking with the actual psychologist who performed the test, to confirm the test came from them, and confirmation that there are no special relationships between the test taker and the subject, can give us a greater inclination to believe the test could be trusted.

But we can still only partially trust those results, and rely on, what I shared to be a useful method, of using personal productions that should match up with the intelligence of the person making the claim. Productions as I stated is best in an artifact that can be used later, and a total collection of works of production, and life achievements is very useful for comparing against claims. But not all can communicate this way and some are really disabled or have other deficiencies that block communication. For that we can use verbal conversation and interviewing to allow the speaker to demonstrate very great velocity of significance and ideation, which again includes very rapid conveyance of meaning with many connections, and with immediate and frequent problem solves. If one cannot do this oneself for not being quite in the same range of expected intelligence, then one can rely on a third party like myself to have conversation in order to test for it. The larger process that can be used is described more fully in the response to the question regarding scammers later in the interview.

People who are leaders of HighIQ societies that do not have very large numbers of members, will have processes that are likely somewhat inferior to those that are established like Mensa. Leaders of societies also bypass testing itself, simply creating them, and then making requirements for others. For those individuals who are leaders of societies, additional caution must be exercised, and for these people I especially recommend my growing writings on Cults, and the process described later. That someone founds an intelligence society does not mean for certain they are a charlatan, but it does mean that their membership antedates the processes that are created for others. For any member that joins the society later there was a double-standard of demonstration that did not exist for the originator. The originator has many more criteria for demonstration of personal medical artifacts, ethically being in a high authority position, to openly demonstrate they are not a predator. The nicest intelligence society leader can still be a fraud, who capitalized on memberships and false prestige. Moreover, they almost have to exaggerate their IQ scores in order to make it seem they have special authority. There is a strong resemblance to this kind of behavior and being a cult leader, even if nothing highly predatory occurs. However, opportunities will arise for predation once an authority has been established and can last for many decades.

Either way, like with historical figures, I think we are best to think that having the most high quality artifacts, and the best description, should be used to arrive at the most honest possible evaluation, that is not hopeful or wishful that the person being evaluated is to be greater than they really happen to be. Informally, it must also be confirmed that they can convey significance and have a high velocity of ideation, which indicates immediate problem solving and very great interdisciplinarianism, to confirm that their minds can output what they claim their brains are self-communicating internally. If their brains self-communicate great significance, and great ideation internally, it will be conveyed outwardly, or we must be very cautious.

Additionally, living individuals do produce content, unless they are never on social media or are never writing emails. In many conversations I’ve had on social media may responses from peers were very low quality, although some fewer were very high. Low quality postings in the form of memes of low or moderate interest are shared, instead of creative or significant writings, and some share repetitively and predictably the same ideas again and again. People of extremely high intelligence would convey curiosity that exists in want of feedback of novelties, and would write new ideas, using their own sophisticated communication style, in an often high vocabulary, and would think dissertatively often. Here is an example of a spontaneously and rapidly written dissertative posting. Excess repetition indicates stagnation. Very high intelligence results in people who appear older to readers than their actual age, because of very great progress in updates to mentality, and this would be reflected in incredibly sophisticated and mature thought. But living leaders and supposedly profoundly gifted members of societies really sometimes share really basic information again and again, and yet there are many believers that they are as intelligent as they say they are. This includes people who claim over 200 IQs which would be IQs well over the 99.9999 percentile on SD15 tests, which really do not exist. This is why the Prometheus society only accepts the Miller Analogies test to gain members scoring over 4 standard deviations, or the 99.997 percentile. But this test amounts to only a little more than the vocabulary subtest of the SB-V, one of 12 subtests given, which I score at 99.98% maximally. It is considered a standalone with features that are similar to culture fair tests using matrix reasoning, and this I also score 99.89%. But the Miller Analogies test does not contain the visual component that the matrix reasoning test provides, so anyone entering this society may have lopsided intelligence favoring verbal skills, enabling thinkers who are low on visuospatial to enter. That society does not accept any other test due to limitations on testing, and instead of recognizing that folks like myself are immeasurably intelligent, they accept the only test that scores past 4 standard deviations, even though it is only verbal and relates to only one or several subtests primarily. Later I will have to account for claims as to correlation. It cannot even be stated which ones it relates to and cannot defend its relationship to FSIQ. Yet there are societies that defend higher admissions entries than this, and these are ever more dubious, and some members exhibit probable thoughts rather than improbable ones, and only those, in their social productions. These productions are part of their datum for analyzing their intelligence.

Some may state “It’s unfair to use social media to determine intelligence” but how is anyone to judge if not from conversation flowing from the mind readily? Many of these conversants are slow and offer short statements only, and skip longer conversation with “too long didn’t read” rude responses. Despite their avowed exceptional scores, they fare very poorly in comparison to others who exhibit incredible writing.

Some also may think that their lacks on visuospatial may go unrecognized having incredible verbal skills, but being incredibly strong visuospatially, I can tell from their behavior in person, conversing with them, if they can visualize well or not, and can glean it from the writing over time too. And vice versa from visuospatial to writing.I know at least one person from Prometheus society who exhibits weak rather than strong visuospatial abilities, and believe these would also flaw culture-fair pattern relating test results.

Existing highly intelligent figures should show evidence of immediate creativity in the form of humor too, although here I do expect some variations where some are autistic or have aspergers (some are still self designated with this word). This is very different than those who use canned humor, and repeated humor that seems to come from others, and an overall inability to create a new joke “on the fly”. Rapid and frequent humor generation that is novel and never to be used again is a trait of the profoundly gifted, although I cannot say much as to the extent, as I do not have data concerning it, but can say it is related to kind wit, and social abilities, and this is instrumental for the development of careers, congenial colleague relationships, enjoyable collaborative mutual work, and even if it is not a required component of intelligence, is an expansion of intelligence into talents tying to nervous system moduling that is greater than not having it at all. All my life I’ve been a kind and goofy comedian to put it mildly.

Laziness is also a trait to be used in the evaluation of intelligence, because if one is intensely curious, seeking stimulation to satisfy an extremely active mind, that craves significance and ideation, then it is obvious that feedback loops on such ideation is needed, to progress that ideation. Otherwise the mind under evaluation would never appear older than the age of the mind. The mind would have sufficient feedback to experientially age faster and if one is lazy then one is simply not as curious as one might think one is. There is physical laziness and intellectual laziness, but the two come together in the prodigy.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:

Question 9: How can individuals protect themselves from scammers?

A Process for Self-Protection from Highly Intelligent or Fraudulent Scammers

Much has been provided in earlier questions and the earlier sections on velocity of significance and ideation, and my relevant background information that can now be used to support the population in detecting true profound giftedness, and con-artists.

Here it is necessary to divide those who would use this process who are at special risk for having less intelligence, than those who have much more, and can cautiously read people for their potential riskiness. Those who are in the former category will certainly need a third party to support in the process, whereas people in the latter category, who on reading find themselves to be like myself, can on their own use this process.

Let’s first begin with how to self-protect if one is in the group who cannot self-trust for not really being intelligent enough to determine in conversation if there is really highly significant and rapid ideation occurring, or if something only seeming that way is being presented.

Those who would need to use this process in the first category extends from those who are handicapped through to those who are still very intelligent, but are not profoundly intelligent. However, a trusted intelligent figure may fill the role of the trusted person anytime someone extremely intelligent is unavailable. Obviously there is a number issue but for now we will review the simple process, understanding there are still limitations.

If I presented a process like that I might like to create, and perhaps will, it would be unusable to others.

Those in this first group would rely on factors not relating to intelligence at all, and this advice could as easily come from a doctor, or someone in a profession that understands the risks of authority, and has an understanding of people that are detectable as dangerous on other grounds than fraudulently claiming very high intelligence. This topic is about self protection from people, not from their ideas; and if someone is not in the same range as those who are incredibly gifted, there is nothing that is complex to be received anyway. However, the result of the process can still be a favorable finding that the highly intelligent person, like me, is a good mentor to almost anyone, conveying pathways to what might be needed to anyone who might need anything.

Firstly, I would share a list of simple questions to consider:

• “Does this person want anything from you?”
• “Does what they want appear to be:
  • Financial?”
  • Religious?”
  • Sexual?”
  • Attentional?”
• The reader can then consider, that I wouldn’t want any of those things from anyone, and I am an example of trustworthiness. They can also consider, that if someone wants any of these things, they would be asking for:
  • Something valuable to you.
  • Something requiring big change potentially.
  • Something that could subject you to damage.
• And that what they want
  • Isn’t about you as much as getting something.
  • Could come from someone else easily.
• “Are they also powerful?”
  • “Do they seem especially smart?”
  • “Are they especially attractive?”

Some super intelligent people are highly attractive, and I’m highly attractive myself, as can be seen by my photographs I included.

It will be noticed that this short part of the process could easily be developed further, and is simplistic in nature. One simply needs to identify if there are any obvious wants. If you were interacting with me, there is nothing that I want.

If any of these are present then one can move quickly to asking a trusted party to support in thinking about the riskiness of the person, but one has to choose someone who seems powerful in the same ways.

If no trusted person like this is available, the best course of action is to avoid this person, because one could not receive much from this person anyways, for potentially not being in the same thinking range as them. One can ask “What will I learn from Einstein if I can’t read his papers?”

If one can find a trusted person like in the above, and that person is themselves really able to evaluate, then they would evaluate using the method I will describe for those who might be in the same thinking range as the person to be evaluated. For that person the process becomes the same.

It is obvious that there is social awkwardness to using this process, but there is social awkwardness to needing someone to support any deficiency whatsoever. The risk here is that someone will not utilize this process due to the social awkwardness, but it is not possible at this moment to propose a process that cuts through all social awkwardness for all people who might need to use it. Speaking to one’s parents about the quality of a potential date may be useful, but culturally people won’t use it. Instead they simply irrationally engage in risky behaviors and have sex with predatory or unknown copulants over and over. What I am proposing here is actually supposed to cover this case, as a scammer and predator might be a highly intelligent person preying on someone who is deficient by comparison, and cannot make rational decisions for not being able to have sufficient information to know if the person is predatory or not.

It is possible to use this process without actually making any final determination about the person, since really still too little is known. A way to think about this is that someone might be risky and attractive, and acting rationally one should choose to “take a pass” on that person, even while admitting that not enough can be known to socially judge that person, who my actually be quite good, or relatively risk-free, or normal and both risky and not. It’s like having sexual relations with someone before knowing them for a few months.

Now let us consider those who are able to evaluate independently, who would be the same people who would be able to be the trusted support person for avoiding possible scammers.

Those in this group can still utilize the above to their benefit, but can do so easily and quickly and move on to more thorough evaluation. A more challenging consideration that must be considered quickly is:

• “Does it seem like this person wants something now, or does it seem like they will premeditate for something over a longer period?”

This is resolvable by making it possible to have, over time, numerous exposures to further evaluate, but if one is really skilled interpersonally, one should see signs that there is still something wanted, but the person is simply willing to wait for it. This is not something that can be easily described here, since the process requires a natural ability to “size people up” and detect very small behaviors and attributes, and personality traits. If one cannot do this then one may not actually be as adept at evaluating as one thinks. One might know if one is good at this or not if one is skilled in interviews, good at poker without requiring the mathematical component of poker, or if one is great at sales, comedy and persuasion.

If it appears on inspection that this person wants something in time that is in the first set of lists then this person is advisable to be avoided by the other person, if doing it on someone’s behalf, because they will be alone oftentimes without your presence. If it is for you, then you may have reason to wait, being more adept and judicious at re-evaluating, and in subsequent re-evaluations one must be rationally able to exit in an early state, without becoming stuck or too unwilling to become disconnected. The idea here is that early detection of anything that is risky should indicate that one should simply discontinue the connection.

All of the above is decision making in relation to minimizing personal risk that is unrelated to the actual testing of the other person’s intelligence claims. If one uses this well, then one would be able to quickly avoid risks.

Notice that a process like this would make sexual relations with someone who would be evaluated a very risky endeavor because sexual behavior typically results fast in a relationship and not after a period of careful evaluation. I am unwilling to change this process in order to pretend that this behavior can be made rational: it cannot. The result is that with people who might be dangerous sexually are those who must be avoided, at least until an evaluation such as this takes place, and if not, it is unwise. In that case, much human behavior is designated as unwise. If one reads my bio on my choice to be celibate, one will recognize that I have already determined this to be permanently unwise, and I am simply unwilling to spend this time doing these evaluations. Recall that I’ve been married for 20 years and admittedly sex occurred immediately in the beginning. I am unwilling to repeat this behavior now. In any case, I am more adept at determining on my own, for having the intelligence and skills, who might deserve more caution.

Here we can progress to the next step in the process which relates to risks of simply believing and interacting with someone who is a scammer and is fraudulent, regarding their purported intelligence. This portion more clearly relates to all in this article, because few can actually perform an evaluation of their own intelligence and certainly not the intelligence of scammers who really are profoundly talented. If I was a scammer, or was threatening to people or animals, I’d be one of the most threatening people to ever exist. I could be creating or spreading new diseases, killing without detection, having sex with almost anyone I like, and destroying things with explosives. Fortunately, I’m more like a priest, an educator, a medical doctor, and other caring figures, and I don’t care about my privacy.

For this the evaluator must be able to test conversationally, using perceptions of significance and velocity of ideation. This person must be also willing to ask for evidence and artifacts, like those I provided. Trustworthy artifacts like real membership proof, is all that would likely be received regarding health information like intelligence scores, but these should be as verifiable as possible. One can reach out to organizations and ask if someone is really a member or not, although some may protect a members anonymity. Secondly, one can review artifacts of production. If there are none, that is instantly discrediting for a safety process. As I stated, and exceptionally or profoundly gifted person is overflowing with significance and ideation and is compelled to obtain feedback loops on productions. They should seem like me, writing this book in twelve days. There are some who have obstacles preventing this, but I would instantly reject this person because what is the point of believing their intelligence if they are unproductive? One could move on quickly to someone who is both, who cares about productivity as an additional source of verification, and they would know that already.

Now the evaluator self-protecting or protecting another would have artifacts of production indicating very high giftedness, in large quantity or extreme detail and elegance, and would have society verification. A person who claims very high intelligence based on actual psychometrics knows they need a Mensa membership or other reputable society to back it, else they will have to share the test results directly, which is typically considered private. So they really decided to obtain membership. Otherwise they would behave like a pure academic and not speak about intelligence and would only share what they’ve created. If they are trying to persuade regarding intelligence, then they have a society membership to be as close as they can to proving it. So now the evaluator has both sides of the artifacts required, the evidence regarding psychometrics, and the evidence regarding productions. But this still is not a complete demonstration, it is just a required minimal demonstration, because still this person could have faked their way into societies, and productions may appear to be high quality that are really only somewhat good. This process is about determining exceptional or profound giftedness, and again, it is assumed that the evaluator is capable of evaluation. Otherwise avoidance is advised or another trustworthy person is recommended for consultation.

The evaluator must be somewhat within the range of the person being evaluated, but does not need to be entirely in that range. They need to be intelligent enough to detect that the person is more intelligent than they are and likely much more intelligent, but have the skills required to detect significance and velocity of ideas.

Excessively erratic behavior and thinking can exist in people who are extremely gifted, but people also mellow in time, and so people who are slightly older are expected to be less erratic than say, teenagers who are highly gifted, but this would not be an evaluation about a teenage scam artist! Instead this would be an evaluation of an older person who really could scam and convince about having profound giftedness, and not cause people to think they have a deficiency causing really erratic thinking. Also, the person in question would have the skills to speak in a way that is not too far from your level of thinking, but could if they wanted to and you would likely be able to perceive that, as they go in-and-out of your thinking range.

You yourself, being the evaluator who can do this, like myself, must also be able to engage in highly significant conversation with good ideation velocity, or at least be able to understand ideation as it occurs. Ideation is not a supply of “facts”, which is what is provided if the thinker is not an immediate problem solver but is instead an exhibition of recall. People who “have a lot of facts” are not profoundly gifted, because the profoundly gifted are disinterested in simply sharing facts.

Conversing with this person, one would need to notice the following, and it may take a couple conversations to build comfort depending on personality type, but eventually these would be present:

1. Ability to connect widely seemingly disconnected topics, in a way that has clarity.
2. Ability to spontaneously generate new ideas that seem to be solving problems that are thought of on “on-the-fly”.
3. Should be offering ideas that you would never have thought of, with the strong possibility that no one would have thought of them. Often.
4. Thinking should have qualities that resemble academic papers of originality, with a perception of truth, and that if developed, would result in academic success.
5. Have a significance that creates a really strong memory of the power and importance of the conversation.
6. The thinker should have very strong endurance indicating that the significant thinking and ideation could go on endlessly.
7. There should be a perception of obvious differentiation from anyone you ever talked to, because the rarity would be so great as to indicate that this is the only time you will ever talk to someone this intelligent, maybe in your life.
8. The exception to this would be within the HighIQ community but this level of giftedness would still feel rare, and to me it feels rare even there.
9. It should probably be somewhat threatening in feel, depending on the listener, such that the person would understand “too quickly” all that one might share, and might “figure you out” too fast, maybe in a very short number of days.
10. There should be a perception of very great self-sufficiency as if the person will never stop thinking of highly significant things and solutions to problems.
11. They seem to predict or anticipate most of what you say, and may seem to already know what you say, even if they didn’t (i.e. their learning is so fast that they have a reaction that is not different from already knowing it, and maybe they immediately fit it to something else or build on it in their response to you).

I would personally expect that all of these are present, and not just one or a few. I know people who exhibit all of these, and not only myself, although as I produce this I think of my own behavior in particular. I would be unable to come up with these points without having myself as the example.

Notice that this person would have all four of the following:

1. They would appear to be not risky based on the first process, regarding personal well-being other than potential unveracity of intelligence claims.
2. They would have society memberships and would openly share proof.
3. They would have productions that are of very good quality.
4. They would have all of the qualities above indicating communicative skill showing very high significance in thinking and velocity of problem solving, indicated by “live” novel ideas.

At this point you have a high probability that this person really is as gifted as they say they are, but there is still some probability that they exaggerate somewhat. One can exaggerate from high IQ to a higher one, and they do.

Much more can be said regarding this topic but it is easy to create a lengthy process that is too disinteresting to the reader. This interview will be revised in the future to provide an increasingly easy to use process, with better operationalization of the ideas of significance and velocity. It was stated earlier that what must be used initially has to be informal until there are better techniques, and in this case, probably software solutions. But a profoundly gifted person can play poker well without describing in neuroscientific detail how they win; they can use basic ways to convey how they detect mannerisms that allow them to “read” others, then consistently read them to win predictably over time. Likewise, for those who are able to act as evaluators, who are in the immeasurable range, they can already play the poker game, and these ideas will be understood very naturally and not much more elaboration would be required. They would also know the limitations I mentioned are true and that such an informal method would be necessary, and that later it would be nice to have a technological method. Since they are the people who would fare well in such an evaluation, they will immediately understand and build upon what I shared and may already use such a method without ever having created a process for it.

Before closing I want to also mention that there is an extremely large number of subtle risks and I have to admit I’ve gotten myself into some scammer related situations, once by being less cautious, letting a new person stay in my hotel room at an event, who became dangerously and criminally risky and had to be purged with careful manipulation. There were also several times I provided funds or investments to members who were in either Triple Nine Society, Prometheus, or Mega society, to provide some anonymity, who seem as though they were not entirely honest. This created lingering uncertainties as to whether or not I was really being defrauded. In one case, the funds were small enough at around one thousand dollars and the individual’s stewardship of the community was good enough that I simply considered it not unworthwhile. In another case I gave a much larger amount of funds to someone who seemed only years later to have been under fincancial duress, but this person had an unexpected inheritance, and paid me back with interest. So again, despite uncertainties and some stress about the conditions of the lending, I was eventually paid back according to expectations. I do think this is an example of a lapse however, in considering the simple process above as it relates to future wants and needs that are not immediately obvious on inspection. I also don’t think the process above is any cure for being potentially defrauded, because as in business, there will be times in which an opportunity looks good at first, but later sours. I am happy to relay that these people are typically very kind and helpful people, and seem to have many good relationships, and I don’t see them as an ongoing serious threat to my well-being.

Concluding Response

It appears that significance relates to density of neural material, and that velocity relates to the ability to quickly form new connections and make fast transmissions over the wider denser network of tissue. What is better than the informal approach to evaluating others and oneself using this view, is tying the concepts the actual neuroscientific underpinnings. Those reading this paper in the High Intelligence community I think will largely agree with what is stated in this paper, and will recognize that this does differentiate the highly intelligent from the less intelligent.

The purpose of this paper was to respond to Mr. Jacobsen’s questions relating to verifying various living and deceased figures, detecting scam artists, determining the value of certain psychometric tests, and of course, although it was unstated, to convey why I would be the right person to be answering these questions. For that I provided extensive background information probably greatly exceeding in transparency and detail what other respondents provided, and probably unexpectedly. While unexpected I think it was necessary. Also discussed was the value of Mensa membership, some difficulties faced by people in the high range around employment, and benefits of Mensa membership and personal accomplishments.

In each of these conversations the theme of significance and ideation in communication through speaking and recordings was found to be relevant. I think one would find on reflection, that one would have to raise this in a huge number of topics on intelligence, such that it could be irritating to speak concerning it again and again. I would go so far to say that these concepts can be used to replace the worth “intelligence” and tie it to neuroscience. This attests to the significance of this particular communication. If it is widely applicable for describing intelligent people, understanding their needs, understanding the value of intelligence tests, and is relevant for interpreting productions as profoundly intelligent or not, and is new, and instrumental, then what has been shared is highly general, abstract, has many relationships, and large explanatory power. This document then is a recording utilizing and embodying the concept, and it is expected that it will be novel to many members of the public and IQ communities, even if some postings on the subject from my earlier blog posts do have some early conceptual introductions to this view in a really cursory format.

A topic not incredibly well considered here is creativity. Much confusion exists concerning creativity, but creativity is not incredibly complex from my view. I think it seems complex to those who are not incredibly creative themselves, so wonder somewhat when it really happens, and have fewer examples. Ideation is directly related to learning and problem solving happening in concert, and when one learns as fast as someone in the profoundly gifted range one understands problems immediately and then solves them oftentimes immediately and the result is both a learning and a problem solve. I will say much more on this topic in the future and elsewhere, but here will simply state it really is not that complex in an experiential perspective from one who really is unusually creative. “Quickness of apprehension” is a phrase used for explaining intelligence, which means “minimally understood fast” which is even better if experienced as “learned fast”. If joined with “created a problem from the learning and solved it, or solved it” and it happens often and immediately, this is ideation and learning.

On an intelligence test, one is required to learn the problem that is new on the spot, and solve it on the spot. All intelligence tests provided that are not created by individuals for questionable HighIQ Societies are timed. Even if much time is provided, the psychometrician’s pay rate will time it. And someone is in front of you waiting for your answer. You have to learn the problem in front of you and problem solve it right there. The answer you found is an idea. Sometimes there are no options for answers, and you have to say the answer. That was an idea. Identification of an answer is a selection, but on the way to the selection were many ideas about mental transformations that are new, related to the learnings had immediately.

When speaking to someone to appraise whether they are intelligent or not, there should be some indication that their mind is functioning as if there is an IQ test in front of them, but they are creating the problems and are making the solutions, and they are complex and they are doing it on the spot. This is if the conversation is not purely relaxing but is interesting. In this way even psychometric test taking is related to internal communication in significance and velocity of ideas, because outside the psychometric context the problems are wider life problems with ideas being applicable to those problems, with solutions happening all the time. All life long, from childhood into adulthood, indicating that experience grows faster, and age is happening sooner, even if appearance does not show it. If I am truly myself, I appear very old, and my interests make very little sense to people my age if they hear what they really are. But if they do hear what they really are they hear that they are extremely significant and interconnected, and rely upon a need for extensive problem solving. It appears that the problem set is too large for them to solve themselves in an indefinite lifespan.

A conversation can happen about this immediately, but typically there are several before there is comfort enough to delve into these conversations. I can know if someone is profoundly gifted or not if I ever have that conversation, and since it is so rare, it never really happens.

If one has an intelligence in the immeasurable range one’s intelligence can range from one in a thousand at a minimum, to one in a billion or more. This means I will never meet anyone maybe who has my same intelligence in public. This also is the value of Mensa and other intelligence organizations because one can get satisfyingly close. An objective of mine is to record enough to provide the potential for comprehensive communication to share to others who might understand, whether some exists presently to understand it all, or who might exist in the future. There may be some who I know now who could understand it, but I don’t know enough about these particular people to be sure, and in any case, they have lives and projects of their own that would limit their interest and dedication to reading hundreds of books.

Comforts around conversation between people in the immeasurable range involve sensitivities still. So even if a person met in the High Intelligence community survives the safety evaluator test above, and I know a couple who do, there is still some respect that blocks full expression, and some may have some self-protection needs around ideas to be kept for private development. This means I cannot know if there is a true match in intelligence. So even if I’m with someone who is as intelligent as me, there is this idea that I don’t know if they are, and there is still a perception that I may be smarter than them. I have never been fearful of sharing my ideas, and I have never met anyone who appears to convey more than I can understand. This means effectively I do not know if I have ever or will ever meet anyone who is smarter than I am, and it gives me a feel like I’m the very smartest person who could exist, even if that is not the case.

Finally, I would like to announce something related to a serious omission of this article that is universal in all conversations about intelligence, concerning the absence of forthcomingness about actual intelligence scores from personal medical history. It will take some time and preparation, but I will provide my true psychological reports coming from my psychologists, along with interpretations. This means not only will I have provided the evidence that the process of detecting risks indicates should be provided, including proof of organizational memberships and commensurate productions, I will also include the documents I obtained for admission into the groups. This includes the test scores and psychological case reports resulting from conversation with the psychologists, and their reflections on the process. Their personal encapsulations of the experience administering and scoring the tests will be shared.

Thus I will have provided all the evidence I can of my immeasurable giftedness, and all the relevant context and personal details that went into the testing. There will be nothing additional I would feel could be omitted from my artifacts that one could use for appraising my intelligence. I hope it is useful for an ongoing comparative study of cases of Mr. Jacobsen and others, and I will utilize it to further substantiate level of giftedness in conjunction with my ongoing production of life artifacts, in my Book and Journal.

This way I will not face those same difficulties of other historical figures who are now untestable, and I will not become a living figure who died before sharing sufficient life evidence. It is expected that I would be more trusted than I otherwise could be, despite great openness, ensuring I cannot ever be considered a High Intelligence Charlatan or Scammer. Since I was tested a number of times, since being a small child, there will be no way to claim that these scores have been altered or invented, and I would not be opposed to permitting researchers to talk to psychologists who administered the test, whom I don’t know and are independently credible in their fields.

It will take some time and preparation to consider the risks of sharing these medical documents, because on first consideration, the psychometricians themselves could be at some risk, and the documents themselves could be used as sources for creating similar documents that have all the characteristics of true tests. However, I’m aware that any person can take tests and the contents of those tests they receive would have similar materials that could then be falsified, but judicious consideration is still required. Probably a primary way people fraudulently enter societies, like with college, is to take tests and simply alter the contents in the results thinking at least some college will overlook cross-checking it with test providers. If the admissions process fails to reach out to test providers, can’t make contact, or forgets during a period of waiting, people will be admitted. This would be due to simple admissions forgetfulness or some normal laziness. I think people in organizations often work hard to protect their admissions processes, but to say they never do this is akin to saying employers never mishire.

Interview Query

Original Request

This is the original text from the email request sent by Mr. Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The original email files and correspondence including this text are located below in Correspondence.

This is the interview as I received it, that required some deburring, reordering, and mild rephrasing. Interviews are interesting because they too present risks. These risks can include scams, personal attacks, and traps that could be utilized for personal attacks. While I think the work of Scott Jacobsen appears mostly kind, receiving such requests does require the application of the process mentioned in this text, and caution about personal risks that come after responses to the interview. Also there is risk of responding to a question in which the topic may be applied to the respondent, and where the respondent may be associated negatively with people mentioned. It can’t be known if slander or defamation would result from response, or if the subject matter itself is something the interviewer wants to apply to the interviewed. It could indicate that already the interviewer has taken a position against the target who cannot overcome that negativity even in the response, particularly if that response is short. This lengthy response in book format controls for that potentiality.

Even if for this particular interview, some of this in inapplicable, this information is supportive to others regarding risk of the interview process, and to those who have or might be interviewed in the future.

“Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You wrote an interesting article entitled”How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?” (Cavanaugh, 2018). You bring forward individuals like Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell, Paul Cooijmans, Grady Towers, and societies such as the Mega Society, the Giga Society, and Mensa International. By and large, these are well-known within the high-IQ communities, of which I sit out in the Oort Cloud with a telescope making notes enjoying the show and sending occasional correspondence for interviews with members of these communities. I am not a formal member of these communities. I have contributed to publications or had positions for which I’m grateful, but no formal legitimate memberships because of no formal test to determine the merit of the matter or deep abiding interest at that level, as some societies do not require test scores, permit second test scores, or utilize, widely, alternative tests with varying degrees of legitimacy in the measurement of the psychological construct of g, general intelligence. As far as I know, those societies with strict mainstream intelligence test requirements are Mensa International and the Triple Nine Society, especially with Mensa International having formal testing sites online or, pre-coronavirus, invigilation stations all over the world. These are important to consider, internationally, even sophisticated frauds exist in the high-IQ communities with a grotesque example in the multi-level marketer (scammer), human trafficker, and cult leader Keith Raniere with the organization NXIVM where he was known as “Vanguard.” To a more on-point tune and as a point of clarification to start us off here today, with Feynman’s declared IQ of 126 (no S.D. mentioned), as stated in the article, what is the factual status of Feynman’s declared IQ in contrast to professional commentary or considerations of his mathematical abilities?

Jacobsen: Do you have any particularly favourite articles from Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society?

Jacobsen: What was the eventual outcome or the larger conclusions from the Terman Study?

Jacobsen: What seem like the common reasons for the exceptionally intelligent and profoundly intelligent finding inappropriate employment or remaining unemployed/underemployed?

Jacobsen: The most legitimate intelligence test scores tend to come from comprehensive tests with money and research dumped at them, e.g., the SB and the WAIS. Yet, their ranges are fairly tight around 40/45 to 160/155 on S.D. 15. Some statistical, psychometric techniques, e.g., Rasch-equated, have been employed by individual experimental psychologists, e.g., Dr. Xavier Jouve, to extrapolate for claimed scores at 175 S.D. 15, for example. Alternative tests made by independent test constructors are interesting and vary in quality, though have a far larger quantity. In the article, bluntly, you state, “140,150,160,170,180 are the numbers immediately grasped by liars and exaggerators.” When using alternative tests, fake names or pseudonyms, or more than the first test attempt to claim a score at 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180, what are first thoughts coming to mind to you?

Jacobsen: How can individuals protect themselves from scammers?

Jacobsen: Why should individuals stick to professional achievements positive for individual authentic self- esteem and the common good rather than test score?

Jacobsen: What does a Mensa International membership mean to you?

Jacobsen: How can individuals read more on matters of IQ, societies, intelligence, and the like, outside of the references in the article?

Numbered Format with Minor Edits

This is the translation/paraphrasing of the above original block formatted group of questions used above. These are the questions I utilized directly in the course of answering questions. They are organized numerically and the order was updated to enable related answering of more similar topics. I have also deburred these questions to ensure unambiguously positive intent.

• Question 1. The most legitimate intelligence test scores tend to come from comprehensive tests with money and research dumped at them, e.g., the SB and the WAIS. Yet, their ranges are fairly tight around 40/45 to 160/155 on S.D. 15. Some statistical, psychometric techniques, e.g., Rasch-equated, have been employed by individual experimental psychologists, e.g., Dr. Xavier Jouve, to extrapolate for claimed scores at 175 S.D. 15, for example. Alternative tests made by independent test constructors are interesting and vary in quality, though have a far larger quantity. In the article, bluntly, you state, “140,150,160,170,180 are the numbers immediately grasped by liars and exaggerators.” When using alternative tests, or more than the first test attempt to claim a score at 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180, what are first thoughts coming to mind to you?
• Question 2. How can individuals read more on matters of IQ, societies, intelligence, and the like, outside of the references in the article?
• Question 3. What seem like the common reasons for the exceptionally intelligent and profoundly intelligent finding inappropriate employment or remaining unemployed/underemployed?
• Question 4. What was the eventual outcome or the larger conclusions from the Terman Study?
• Question 5. Why should individuals stick to professional achievements positive for individual authentic self-esteem and the common good rather than test score?
• Question 6. What does a Mensa International membership mean to you?
• Question 7. Do you have any particularly favourite articles from Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society?
• Question 8. You wrote an interesting article entitled “How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?” (Cavanaugh, 2018). You bring forward individuals like Richard Feynman, Bertrand Russell, Paul Cooijmans, Grady Towers, and societies such as the Mega Society, the Giga Society, and Mensa International. By and large, these are well-known within the high-IQ communities, of which I sit out in the Oort Cloud with a telescope making notes enjoying the show and sending occasional correspondence for interviews with members of these communities. I am not a formal member of these communities. I have contributed to publications or had positions for which I’m grateful, but no formal legitimate memberships because of no formal test to determine the merit of the matter or deep abiding interest at that level, as some societies do not require test scores, permit second test scores, or utilize, widely, alternative tests with varying degrees of legitimacy in the measurement of the psychological construct of g, general intelligence. As far as I know, those societies with strict mainstream intelligence test requirements are Mensa International and the Triple Nine Society, especially with Mensa International having formal testing sites online or, pre-coronavirus, invigilation stations all over the world. These are important to consider, internationally, even sophisticated frauds exist in the high-IQ communities with a grotesque example in the multi-level marketer (scammer), human trafficker, and cult leader Keith Raniere with the organization NXIVM where he was known as “Vanguard.” To a more on-point tune and as a point of clarification to start us off here today, with Feynman’s declared IQ of 126 (no S.D. mentioned), as stated in the article, what is the factual status of Feynman’s declared IQ in contrast to professional commentary or considerations of his mathematical abilities?
• Question 9. How can individuals protect themselves from scammers?

Correspondence

Below is the original correspondence between Mr. Jacobsen and myself, via my Harvard University mailbox.

• Interview Request 1
• Interview Request 2

Correspondence

My Contact Details:

Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, “Mattanaw”:

• cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu,
• CC: mattanaw@mattanaw.com,
• CC: christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org

Admissions Pages of Mentioned Societies

These admissions pages were challenged and supported partially and differentially for each of the society mentioned in the article.

• Mensa

• Intertel

• Triple Nine Society

• Volant of Elysian Trust

• Prometheus Society

• Mega Society

• Olympiq Society

Bibliography

Cavanaugh, C. (2018). How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think? Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Playntext. Retrieved from: http://www.mattanaw.com/how-do-people-with-iqs-over-180-act-and-think.html

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press.

Dennet, D. (2006). Breaking the Spell. Viking. Einstein, A. (1998). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court. [Editor left out to prevent editor wrapped citations]

Ferguson, M. (2014). H. Macrocephalus. Retrieved from: http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9997.html?m=1

Ferguson, M. (2015). The Inappropriately Excluded. Retrieved from: http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/the-inappropriately-excluded-by-michael.html?m=1

Gödel, K. (1962). On Formerly Undecided Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Dover

Knuth, D. (1968). The Art of Computer Programming. Addison-Wesley.

Herrnstein & C. Murray. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Free Press.

Mattanaw. (2003). Rational Times. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.org/rational-times.html

Mattanaw. (2006). Personal Form. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.org/mattanaws-personal-form.html

Mattanaw. (2017). The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.com/the-burden-of-having-too-many-ideas.html

Mattanaw. (2021). The Significance of Ideas and Creativity. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.com/christopher-matthew-cavanaugh-thoughtstream.htm?fbclid=IwAR2GhTeEVpiCxCTcTI3dOaPQdEFds0l3-t0ZsPS8lPTCl0jRgmfWD3VIuFM#the-significance-of-ideas-and-creativity

Mattanaw. (2022). *Writing Shares, Recording of Recordings. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Playntext. Retrieved from: http://www.mattanaw.com/site-history-archive.html

Mattanaw. (2022). Bio and Stats. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Playntext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.com/bio-and-stats.html

Mattanaw. (2022). Living Autobiography. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Playntext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.com/living-autobiography.html

Mattanaw. (2023). Abandoning Equality. Unpublished Book Manuscript. Playntext.

Mattanaw. (2023). Reading. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.com/reading.html

Mattanaw. (2023). Bibliography, Citing, and Referring. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.org/bibliography-citing-and-referring.html

Mattanaw. (2023). Certification. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Playntext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.com/certification-requirements.html

Mattanaw. (2023). Linguistic Associative Graphs, Brains, and Adaptive Organs Like Skeletons. hBook and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: ttp://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#linguistic-associative-graphs-brains-and-adaptive-organs-like-skeletons

Mattanaw. (2023). My History of Writings in the High Intelligence Community. Book and Journal of Mattanaw. Plaintext. Retrieved From: http://www.mattanaw.org/thoughtstream.html#my-history-of-writings-in-the-high-intelligence-community

Wanattam. (2022). Mathematics. Playntext. http://www.mattanaw.com/mathematics.html

Newton, I. (2016). The Principia: The Authoritative Translation and Guide: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. First Edition. [Editor left out to prevent editor wrapped citations] Pfeffer, H. (1998). The Too Many Aptitudes Problem Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. https://megasociety.org/noesis/138/aptitude.html

Tao, T. (2016) Analysis I. Second Edition. Hindustan Book Agency. Retrieved from the American Mathematical Society.

Towers, G. (1987). The Outsiders. Gift of Fire: Journal of the Prometheus Society. https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/

Russell, B., & Whitehead, A. (1910) Principia Mathematica, Volume I. Cambridge.

Russell, B., & Whitehead, A. (1962). Principia Mathematica to ’56. Cambridge.

Glossary

Dissertative Thinking

“Dissertative thinking” is a new phraseal coinage of mine relating to the propensity of a thinker to have so many novel thoughts, with strong internal and external communication skills to match, especially if one has strong typing or dictation skills, that chunks of thoughts had again and again in a day, or in a conversation, have such novelty and pre-development, including on-the-fly development, to be incipient Dissertations. Examples can be found on my ThoughtStream wherever the recordings are in paragraph form, are dense and novel, and are proven to be extremely rapid because they were timed, showing a high level of development and novelty. Oftentimes intuitions were only just prior to the writing, or recently, but the writing, usually semi-blind typed, without edits, timed for speed, were already of good quality, and provide obvious examples of incipient dissertations.

The extremely profoundly gifted would think that academia is too slow and stifling, for having so many dissertative thoughts that would relate to Ph.Ds, that one Ph.D earning over many years appears inappropriate to their intellects. Instead what is preferred is independent thinking, that gradually brings the state of dissertative thoughts to complete thoughts not requiring any dissertation to begin with. This does not imply that a exceptionally and profoundly gifted person will not want one or more doctorates for other reasons which would relate to pragmatic considerations, but they would recognize that the process does result in a number of academic writings that would not represent all the dissertation equivalents that exist in their minds.

Dissertation writing is not difficult as would be indicated by this article itself, and this is one of a future of 880 to 1760 dissertations that will appear in this Book and Journal in the next forty years. There is a review process to Dissertations not performed by the immeasurably gifted, and while review may suggest changes that would result in “defensible dissertations” increasing the quality, meaning at first they fail them then approve them after edits, there is no chance that one in 1760 dissertations would not be approved. Furthermore, additional edits to these 1760 constitute new submission variants and if there are, say, three comprehensive edits of each, that would be 5,280. If one establishes a probability of a dissertation’s acceptance from me it would be a probability of much greater than 1/5,280. Therefore I can assume doctoral status, and can simply count the topics and fields and list my numerous doctorates at a later date.

Any of these could be submitted for equivalency certifications or for peer-review at academic journals, and if any editing was required, it could be done in parallel asynchronously with other productions, considering it from a day-to-day perspective (obviously time is synchronous for writing unless I learn to write two things at the same time, and I cannot).

There will not be just one that’s the dissertation, as if a doctorate award prevents future works of similar quality and content would not also be dissertations. Article dissertations, book dissertations, and all sorts of dissertations occur after that one dissertation that produced a doctorate. It is a strange oversight, perhaps indicating insufficient intelligence combined with boldness, to forcefully convey, that any work that has properties of being a dissertation is one; and to the benefit of those writers who produced works after the first, of the same quality, in other fields, there really are and have been other dissertations written by them that are doctorate equivalent.

Being sufficiently intelligent with a combination of dissertative thinking and productivity into writing, exhibiting a significance and velocity of ideation assures eventual doctoral thesis equivalencies. It is a control mechanism of higher education currently to not allow equivalency doctorates like my equivalency GED, and not being informed I could skip school to my benefit, being already identified as gifted in my school system, I will not hear any other system tell me this is not something I can do independently!

What is missing is that dissertative thinking, too, results in sufficient quality of thought, to omit writing. The implication is that between dissertations and during dissertation writing, other dissertative thinking is happening that will go acknowledged too.

The formal quantification of the velocity of significance and ideation would result in a preference for the thought that arises in dissertations over the dissertations, and if mental content could be translated into writing, there would be no writing, and people like myself would become eminent immediately.

There are many dissertations of very poor quality, that indicate low velocity of significance and ideation, which is the cause of the struggle of paper writing and Ph.D thesis completion; anddissertations that are not on a topic that covers a real entity, like that of Dr. Martin Luther King, which covers the conception of a diety as they exist in the work of two other authors. Being theology, a topic in which the subject ought to be known, if studied, it is unknown. It is utterly unlike, say, writing about Oceanic Currents, which is a subject that has real objects to study, measure and describe. There is no diety and the dissertation is an exploration of vacuous concepts, and it is a dissertation about nothing tracing to actual entities. I would not unapprove his dissertation thinking historically he has followed a process that assured it, but it is not a dissertation about a real entity that will be accepted as a worthwhile discussion in the future. I don’t think of Theology as a topic in which dissertations can be had, although History of Religiosity would.

This is not a strange idea that an older dissertation or paper would be rejected later. One only needs to look further in history to see which papers were not really of good quality for Doctoral theses, or look at books written by certain authors from the middle ages. With sufficient time certain papers and books are rejected as being containing illusions and with sufficient time Theological works will be shown to be “illusory” too. This is when our present time becomes distant history like distant history. Seeing current times as modern is the result of cognitive bias and fallacious thinking. The cognitive bias would be one in which the current state of the world cannot be understood to be similar to history in that it will be distant history on development. Unnamed fallacies and cognitive biases outnumber those named.

The entire article must be read to understand fully this entry because premises of this perspective are scattered throughout and are jointly compelling, and necessary to understand more fully.

Genius

Genius is a term included in this glossary because it is one I greatly dislike, and wish to reduce in popular usage, although that is not in my power. Personally however, I can choose to disuse it. In this essay, it is not used actively but is mentioned.

The cause for this is it encourages fabrications mentioned in the essay proper. People wish to be called by this designation but this designation has many poor societal effects.

Much better than to use this term is to simply provide personal details that would culminate in an accurate description of one’s mind and finally would culminate in a correct and accurate, and verifiable autobiography. Notice a mission of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw is to provide such a living autobiography, complete with all materials needed to verify and quantify my mind.

But to make this a true glossary I need to define it here.

“Genius” is a popular designation applied by the public, eventually after being convinced, even without reading or comprehending the original works of the person, that their minds and productions together constitute evidence of velocity of significance and ideation, acceleration, and dissertative thinking at the extremity of what is humanly possible. The term is applied to too few people, and those who it was applied to are historical figures in which we have insufficient data, although some were certainly in the profoundly and exceptionally gifted ranges. These figures have then received a partly unwitting popular vote, unwitting because advertising and propaganda is the cause of the messages resulting in the superficial knowledge. “Genius” figures are as a rule incomprehensible to all but matching-minds, as described in the article. There is great variation in these minds and this is a cause for some not having the designation. As a popularly applied concept it gets misapplied through misinformation also stemming from propaganda and advertising and short messages. This means the word “genius” is simply not a word that is psychometrical, and is instead a popular term, part of the history of organic growth of the English language, and other languages that use an approximate translation.

The psychometrical identification of people who would perhaps become identified as “genius” is the subject of this paper. But the objective of this book/dissertation and upcoming writings is to formalize our understanding and provide better scientific rigor. The rigor will result in the finding that complete descriptions of minds and lives and their productions is better than individual psychometrical tests. The result is that people who are outside the high intelligence community will be found to have test limitations that would have blocked their identification of being profoundly gifted for not including a more complete description of their minds and lives. This same result will also discredit those who merely want to be designated as profoundly gifted, along with dangerous scam artists. Many will discover that while they are highly intelligent via IQ measures their complete description disqualifies them, although it confirms their own lives to them. There will be a better understanding within humanity what total humanity consists of via the zoological understanding of the species, and people will understand their relative standing and see it as true. Thus they will achieve better self-understanding, if this paper is utilized, and genius, along with too-short statements, becomes less preferable to longer descriptions.

It must be noted here that if the word “genius” is applied to an unknown person, almost nothing is known about that person. If a detailed description is applied with details, knowledge begins.

Significance

Significance relates to complexity of meaning, generality of application, abstractness, and network size of interdisciplinary and topical connectedness. Significance relates necessarily to usefulness for life or for innovation, and is not frivolous; although frivolity is to be defined by the thinkers knowing well what significance is, and not listeners who would claim certain kinds of thinking are as much. Significance is often only detectable by minds, or nervous systems, that have sufficient analogy to each other.

Velocity of Significance and Ideation

Velocity of significance is the speed of very large and accurate interdisciplinary and intertopical meaning, related to a very large and actively networked neuronal functioning. This is conveyed in conversation that is characterized by density of meaning, sometimes representing paragraphs and pages of thought not totally expressed but understood, by other with the same capacities and experience preparation only. This is due to both brains having analagous structure even at high complexity.

Velocity of Ideas is also related to brain activity in the immediate formation of new connections, including newly intuited problems and immediate solutions found. This is conveyed in conversation in novelty, also with great significance, repeated again and again, at a velocity that would be measurable ultimately as brain scanning is gradually improved.

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People. October 2023; 12(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2023, October 1). Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People. In-Sight Publishing. 12(1).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 12, n. 1, 2023.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2023. “Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 1 (October 2023).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2023) ‘Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 12(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw>.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2023, ‘Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw&gt;.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.12, no. 1, 2023, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Conversation with Mattanaw on Identifying Highly Gifted People [Internet]. 2023 Oct; 12(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/mattanaw.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Based on 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, or the author(s), and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors copyright their material, as well, and may disseminate for their independent purposes.