In-Sight Publishing

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: January 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: 11

Issue Numbering: 2

Section: A

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 27

Formal Sub-Theme: None

Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2023

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2023

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Interviewer(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Interviewee(s): Luca Fiorani

Word Count: 8,169

Image Credits: Luca Fiorani

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

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

*Previous parts (1) and (2).*

Abstract

Luca Fiorani is a member of Ultima IQ society (cut-off: 170 σ15; founder: Ivan Ivec). Academically, he has a philosophical background. At the same time he sees himself as an independent autodidact. His main interests are: literature, arts, tennis and communication. Fiorani discusses: the Ultima Society; rethinking membership; membership or entrance; requirements in high-I.Q. societies; strict and legitimate entrance requirements; P. Cooijmans’ societies; newer thoughts on high-range testing; reconsideration of high-range testing; a member; tests of Paul’s; T. Prousalis’ tests and X. Jouve’s tests; astronomical I.Q. scores; HRTs; the 2% estimate a qualitative estimate; participation in Sidis Society; CatholIQ; common threads in personality or tests between Dorsey, Cooijmans, Prousalis, Jouve, and Kutle; the qualifying test and score for the Mega Society; a relatively non-arbitrary ceiling of 180 S.D. 15 ; wisdom; measuring the general factor or a generalized factor of intelligence with mainstream intelligence tests and HRTs; the different things measured; one’s intelligence; the single hardest test ever; a high level of problem-solving ability; Megalomania; the hardest things to realize about the high-I.Q. communities; positive developments; leaving Real IQ society; SLSE-II; IVIQ 16 Test; HRT test-makers; flourishing in a comprehensive way; intellectual and creative output of individuals in the high-I.Q. communities; type of test; a generalized intelligence up to and including I.Q. 180 S.D. 15; highly intelligent people waste their talents; the newer generation and the older generation of high-I.Q.; speed of thought; wash out the “basely egocentric behaviors”; the essential stats; the sociocultural and philosophical front; studies; the romantic life; newest intellectual project; protection of others; “The communities”; a reasonable skepticism; good uses of diverse problem solving abilities; diversity, equity, and inclusion; the generic positives and negatives; interest in media and the entertainment industry; the content of the production on Wittgenstein; a sign of a healthy culture; controversial and often polarized discussion; newer media; increasing assholery; should people put on the breaks on their mouths; silence as an indication of restraint; diversity; equity; inclusion; a minority group; the Flynn Effect; vastly positive reception from the high-I.Q. communities; a space for clarity of mind; find the time to get their outlet, their space, their place of calm; the reversal of the Flynn Effect; “Tätigkeit“ and “Therapie”; a long-term romance; the problem-solving abilities for renewable technologies; the compliments; what he say to himself 6 years ago; describing this past person; the world simply doesn’t always come in neat packages; a form of therapy; official comeback; Keith Raniere; eudaimonia; hypersensitivity; the flaws; Jouve; the self-discoveries over the last several years to bring about self-therapy; the Wittgenstein paper; this “valuable opportunity”; the idea behind True IQ; the methodology of Ivec; other people in the high-I.Q. communities; increase the number of test-takers to make the sample sizes larger for more valid tests; “The Real g Test”; the best article on high-I.Q. psychology ever written; Wittgenstein; magnum opus; the components of wisdom; more variance between males and females; a centralized platform for test-creators; good standards; a philosophical stance; paideia; a great level of expertise; the criminals and cults; Kevin Langdon; Master Chef Craig Shelton; people interested in joining high-I.Q. communities; and goals now.

Keywords: Catholiq, Chris Langan, D. Kutle, Dawid Skrzos, Deus Vult, Erik Hæreid, Gianluigi Lombardi, Heidegger, Heinrich Siemens, high IQ community, high-I.Q. societies, Ivan Ivec, James Dorsey, JCCES, Jean-Mathieu Calut, Joe Feagin, Jonathan Wai, Joseph Dinouart, Keith Raniere, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Kirk Raymond Butt, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Mega Society, megalomania, Paul Cooijmans, Plato, Ronald Hoeflin, Rick Rosner, Robert Lato, Santanu Sengupta, Sidis Society, T. Prousalis, Ultima IQ society, Wu Meiheng, X. Jouve, YoungHoon Kim.

Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Lots of new stuff has happened. You have left one high-I.Q. society. You are a member of the Ultima Society. As well, you have some new thoughts on high-range testing. Let’s start from the top, naturally, what else has been new in life for you, since the last interview?

Luca Fiorani: First of all, I’d like to thank you, Scott, for the valuable opportunity.
My life is better than before. It wasn’t bad the last time we talked but now I feel that I’m finally flourishing – in a comprehensive way. [Ed. You’re welcome, and congratulations on flourishing.]

Jacobsen: What prompted rethinking membership in the high-I.Q. society?

Fiorani: I’ve left Real IQ society (founder: I. Ivec) because my global score, my estimated True IQ, was not realistic, not even remotely. I’ve realized that the adjectives ‘real’ and ‘true’ were misused. They didn’t fit. Generally speaking, I’m now against too inflated and too lavish IQ scores. The method approved by Ivec is simply too generous and also not all my scores came from credible and reliable high range IQ tests.

Instead, I’m still a member of Ultima IQ society – cut-off 170 σ15 – because I had entered when the requirements were robust and because “170” is not utterly craziness.

Jacobsen: What happens when membership or entrance requirements in high-I.Q. societies become too lax, even too strict?

Fiorani: When the criteria become too lax, the scores are less serious, less rigorous and people are more inclined to several delusions – unfortunately, megalomania included. They cajole themselves that the resulting scores are legit, trustworthy, stable but very rarely that is actually the case.
Currently, within the high IQ community, it does not happen that the criteria are too strict. At least as far as I know.

Jacobsen: What high-I.Q. societies seem to have strict and legitimate entrance requirements at the moment? I do not mean necessarily higher I.Q.s, simply the boundaries are set reasonably tight, and the testing is more valid than not.

Fiorani: Probably this happens with P. Cooijmans’ societies. (Note: I don’t know the high IQ community in its entirety, there could be other well-founded examples.)

Jacobsen: Why those high-I.Q. societies in particular?

Fiorani: Because all in all the test-author mentioned above has remained true to his principles, even when rigid. His work is consistent and self-cohesive.

1. Prousalis’ tests and X. Jouve’s tests are arguably better, superior, and when I say so I’m expressly referring to the methodology and the stats; they always give relevance to standardized tests: but right now societies based mainly or exclusively on scores earned on these tests – I mean, the ones designed by Prousalis and Jouve – do not exist.

Jacobsen: Your newer thoughts on high-range testing. What are those? Or, more properly, to begin on this line of reasoning, what are the factors behind the newer thoughts?

Fiorani: High range testing is often stimulating and challenging and sometimes has its validity, coherence, plausibility.

HRTs can be decent and even good psychometric instruments. In most cases, though, the tests aren’t adequately accurate, the subsequent scores should be taken very cautiously, without giving them too much value or importance.

My newer thoughts are born when I’ve become aware of the fact that too many people believe that their huge, astronomical, Brobdingnagian scores are their actual IQs: they are not, in reality. No actual IQ above 180 σ15 exists so when I see this plethora of IQ scores above 190 σ15, I start to think. Many, many, many, many, many – you got the idea?… – scores are not serious, they don’t come from enough reputable tests: as simple as that.

Usually when I take a look at a random listing, ⅚ of the scores are comical.

Jacobsen: How did those factors come into more full reconsideration of high-range testing at the moment?

Fiorani: I just look at HRTs in a more relaxed way and I feel compassion for those people who really believe that their IQs are above 180, above 185, above 190, above 195, above 200, just because a bunch of weak, iffy, wobbly instruments say so.

Less than 2% of HRTs are fully functioning and authoritative.

Jacobsen: Outside of Ultima IQ society, are you a member of any others? If so, why those? If not, why not?

Fiorani: Yes, I am. I’m still a member of Sidis Society (founder: J. Dorsey) and also a few more, e.g. Catholiq (founder. D. Kutle).

I appreciate that Dorsey is dedicated and I admire Kutle as a person and I also like the journal Deus Vult.

I indeed have a qualifying score for Mega Society (founder: R. Hoeflin) but I’ve heard that the members can be too harsh sometimes, so I’m not interested in joining.

Jacobsen: What tests of Paul’s stand out? Why those?

Fiorani: For his tests, I can tell you that I read thoroughly the statistical reports and I take into account the opinion of a dozen of versatile test-takers. His best test is probably Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 3E. I don’t have a direct knowledge, though.

Jacobsen: For T. Prousalis’ tests and X. Jouve’s tests, could those tests still be used? People seemed to like the JCCES of Jouve. I know Santanu Sengupta [Ed. 174 S.D. 15] from India claims a high score on it. 

Fiorani: I think that Prousalis’ website isn’t defunct; Jouve is back with revised forms of his old tests and other precious stuff.

I think that JCCES gives realistic results and I consider it a nice psychometric product.

Jacobsen: What tends to happen when individuals believe astronomical I.Q. scores claimed based on some of the tests?

Fiorani: They lose objectivity and sensibleness. Their self-awareness is inferior. And a bit of wisdom is required for high intelligence, in my humble opinion…

Jacobsen: What would make scores coming from HRTs, in terms of test items in an overall schema and sample size, above 180 σ15 believable to you?

Fiorani: Without talking gibberish, 180 sd15 should be the ceiling of ceilings, in an ideal, optimal, utopian high range IQ test. A test that gives you your exact IQ and the game is over. This, too, is implausible, since you always need a collection of heterogeneous tests. A perfect, unique, adamantine IQ test that tells your ultimate IQ is not within this plane of existence. Hypothetically – and merely so –, the ceiling of this imaginary test should be 180 sd15. That’s my (narrow) perspective.

Jacobsen: Is the 2% estimate a qualitative estimate, or an actual count and review of some tests and then an estimate?

Fiorani: It’s more a qualitative estimate than a quantitative precise estimate. It’s not an absurd statement, nevertheless. But let me be clear: I don’t want to be aggressive towards test-authors and test-takers who genuinely care about HRTs and find them beautiful/wonderful, for instance. I’m saying that it’s rare that these products have golden quality under psychometrics’ point of view. Regardless, one could find them astonishing for the inherent difficulty of the items, the multiple logical layers and so on. In most cases you have the dimension of cognitive entertainment and leisure-time activity: and that’s not a bad thing, not at all. Issues come when you convince yourself that all the HRTs you take pertain to (a fully valid) cognitive assessment.

Jacobsen: What is your level of participation in Sidis Society? What do you get out of it?

Fiorani: My level of participation is the following: my name is listed at the corresponding webpage.

I get some sort of prestige, in a way. That I’ve achieved a non-negligible level of cognitive performance. And I support Dorsey’s drive. Plus, I like the name, “Sidis”. That’s all, I guess.

Jacobsen: For CatholIQ, what have been the benefits so far?

Fiorani: For CatholIQ, or Catholiq – apparently both spellings are correct –, the benefits come from some articles of their journal, Deus Vult. You’re informed when it comes out and you can also submit an essay of yours, or a poem, etc. That’s nice and the ambience overall is healthy.

Jacobsen: Any common threads in personality or tests between Dorsey, Cooijmans, Prousalis, Jouve, and Kutle?

Fiorani: I think that Dorsey and Cooijmans are both devoted to HRTs, they deeply care about them. That’s what I perceive and infer.

Prousalis and Jouve have designed tests perfectly comparable to professional tests. The stats of their tests are sometimes impressive.

Kutle is a clever man and a noble person. The items of his tests are very nice and sometimes elegant. I recommend Arcanum and Road to Damascus, both designed by him. They require time and diligence and a high level of crystallized intelligence. They represent a fascinating and pleasant intellectual experience.

Jacobsen: What test was the qualifying test and score for the Mega Society?

Fiorani: Ron Hoeflin knows.

Jacobsen: The norms and scores on Paul’s site list a 76 out of 78 on the Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 3E as the highest score it. I recall a listing of the three top scores on tests by Paul, out of all tests, in an interview with Paul by me. There was a tie for the top score on all of the tests, at the time, with one of the scores on Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 3E. The question, by me, followed by the response, from him:

Jacobsen: What have been the 3 highest legitimate scores on a Cooijmans test by testees to date while using the most up-to-date norms on tests? If I may ask, who were these individuals?

Cooijmans: First, I want to say that this is not an easy question. There are many thousands of scores in the database, and they are raw scores. To compare them, they have to be converted to protonorms. This would not be doable by hand in any reasonable amount of time and effort. To our good fortune, over the course of two decades I have painstakingly written programming code and created a protonorm database so as to dynamically link the raw scores to their current norms, and, for instance, put out a list of scores that exceed a certain level, with the name of the test and candidate if desired. This is the largest and most complex informatics project I have undertaken, and I think it is also the most difficult thing I have ever done, intellectually.

Of course, any good programmer should be able to do this. Still, I must say I never see test statistics by others that even remotely have the quality of my reports, so it seems that not many combine their programming skill with statistics. I set the controls such that only the top three scores remained, and they are 76 raw on the Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 3E, and 27 and 28 raw on the Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5. The I.Q.’s are 190, 186, and 190, respectively. I can not give the names as that would violate the privacy of the candidates.

Of course, the norms in that range are still uncertain, and there may be a number of scores right under these that, after renorming, turn out to be equal to or higher than these. (Jacobsen, 2022a)

My inference: The highest scorer on the Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 3E is personal friend and writing colleague, Rick Rosner, who is a comedy writer. This matches, not the scores but, the achievements on other well-regarded tests, e.g., Mega Test (44/48 first attempt and 47/48 second attempt) and Titan Test (48/48). This would track with the test selection by you. Rick is of the same opinion as you, about Paul’s tests[1]. How can setting a relatively non-arbitrary ceiling of 180 S.D. 15 help with lots of test constructors without the massive comparative resources of mainstream academia? It has an aesthetic appeal of a clearcut boundary.

Fiorani: Rick Rosner, yes. I know him too. I think he is one of the smartest persons I’ve known within the high IQ community. Not only for his monumental scores on highly reputable tests but also for other commendable and remarkable traits. He’s a great guy, very smart, very witty. As a test-taker, he’s certainly better than me. I tend to believe that his mind is the mind of a genius. Rick is uncommon, unconventional, multifaceted.

The ceiling of 180 sd15 has its beauty and its rationality, yes. The WAIS-IV stops at 160 (theoretical rarity: 1/31,560). HRTs could have a boundary, at 180 (theoretical rarity: 1/20,696,863). We know that the theoretical rarity isn’t exactly and strictly the actual rarity – the actual rarity being inferior. But there’s no need to go much higher. To examine at or above 190 σ15, 195 or 200, for instance. I don’t see the underlying logic nor I find the basis, the grounds. Twenty points above the ceiling of the WAIS-IV are enough, especially because twenty points for the upper, upper end have a bigger weight.

If a test is normed well, scores above 166-170 are already exceptional. Of course, scoring 160+, or 170+, or even 180+ on a very imperfect test becomes easier. That’s why a single peak performance of 180+, σ15, does not impress me. Also, peak performances at 190+ are not as rare as the score per se suggests. You always need to understand the construct validity vel similia. You always have to relativize… Otherwise you might start to believe that the rarity of your intellect is really one in a billion: can we all agree that this sounds bizarre, extravagant, exaggerated, laughable, immensely pretentious?

Jacobsen: Can wisdom be measured in any standardized manner? Or is this more something qualitative or experienced in interaction with someone?

Fiorani: Luckily and rightfully, the second thing you’ve said.

Jacobsen: The idea is measuring the general factor or a generalized factor of intelligence with mainstream intelligence tests and HRTs. This leads to the question. With further reflection for you, how much do HRTs and mainstream tests measure the same things?

Fiorani: Very nice question. The connection between the two approaches is not weak, there is in fact a strong correlation. The more traditional way (standardized tests, timed, supervised conditions) and the alternative-inventive way (untimed conditions, items way more difficult/elaborate, etc.). Mainstream tests and HRTs don’t measure the exact same thing. In my opinion, the main difference is given by the fact that reducing the impact of the sheer speed of thinking, you can go deeper and you can reach higher levels of reasoning and complexity. A deep thinker reaches his/her full potential with HRTs, usually. Someone who scores high or very high on WAIS-IV can do pretty well on HRTs, if he/she is enough motivated. It is not said that he/she will score higher than a topscorer of tough and well-constructed HRTs.

Jacobsen: If there are different things measured to acquire scores, what are the different things measured? I do not mean the obvious in different test items and a schema for the test items to fit. I mean the human qualities or mental traits measured in acquisition of a high score.

Fiorani: In untimed conditions, patience, stamina, perseverance are rewarded qualities. Important mental traits rewarded are: the abstraction, the conceptualization and, in a way, the cogitation. In timed conditions a more basic pattern recognition is rewarded and, always, a fast thinking – and related aspects.

Jacobsen: What are other qualities, other than I.Q. and wisdom, going into one’s intelligence?

Fiorani: Creativity (or profound divergent thinking), comprehension of contexts of different nature, knowledge (or culture), artistry (or mastery of talent). All these facets of intelligence are interconnected and they intersect. The more they are intertwined, the better – id est, you are more intelligent.

Jacobsen: Of those avid test-takers known to you, and for yourself, what do they consider the single hardest test ever taken by them, or seen by them? Why?

Fiorani: Taken thirty years ago, without WWW, the Titan Test was hard. I think that Rick Rosner would agree.

People who take Cooijmans’ tests say that some of them are very hard – Heinrich Siemens and also my friend Erik Hæreid would agree, all things considered.
The two spatial tests by (pseudonym) Robert Lato are very hard.

LDA-SWaN by my compatriot Gianluigi Lombardi is surely hard.

The single hardest test seen by me is IVIQ 16 Test (test-author: Dawid Skrzos). The single hardest test taken by me is SLSE-II (test-author: Jonathan Wai).

Jacobsen: How has knowledge of a high level of problem-solving ability helped your personal and professional pursuits?

Fiorani: Life itself consists of problems and solutions, new problems and new solutions, and so on. This is evidently an answer and I’m smiling right now.

Jacobsen: Megalomania has been noted by others and you. Something not the norm in the communities, but just enough to be annoyance. How should people deal with it?

Fiorani: To avoid irritation and also troubles, some obnoxious individuals should be avoided. It’s sad but sometimes things just work like this.

Jacobsen: What have been the hardest things to realize about the high-I.Q. communities?

Fiorani: For sure the high IQ community has good and praiseworthy qualities but too often it’s a venue for basely egocentric behaviors.

Jacobsen: What seem like positive developments?

Fiorani: Reduce the excessive variety of tests’ norms and make them more uniform. The listings, the rankings, etc., could become realistic.

Jacobsen: How did Ivan react, if at all, to leaving Real IQ society?

Fiorani: He accepted my decision.

Jacobsen: What made SLSE-II by Jonathan Wai so hard? Is it still valid, or is it compromised?

Fiorani: Some of the items require extreme attention to details and some others are slightly and acutely obscure. There’s a certain ambiguity rate.

It’s still graded by Wai, I believe.

The items were discussed and some IQ groups declared the test invalid for admission.

Jacobsen: What makes IVIQ 16 Test look so difficult?

Fiorani: Every item is like a labyrinthine encryption. The author, Dawid S., was incredibly good with numerical sequences and I think he solved all the items of the Numerus series by Ivec. Perhaps he naively thought that a common test-taker had his outstanding skills for numbers and pattern recognition, hahaha!

Jacobsen: What have HRT test-makers simply not figured out? What are some directions to solve these issues?

Fiorani: I would give too vague answers, I don’t know. As a maxim: less generous norms and more detailed stats.

Jacobsen: How is your life flourishing in a comprehensive way?

Fiorani: My studies ended, my romantic relationship continues happily, my professional life has started, I cultivate my interests, I’m less anxious, I’m less bored.

Jacobsen: What about intellectual and creative output of individuals in the high-I.Q. communities? Are there any people who stand out as truly matching their claimed or measured intelligence with their productions and/or productivity?

Fiorani: Yes, there are.

Jacobsen: What type of test would measure, in a single test item schema or a single question type, or might tap most into a generalized intelligence up to and including I.Q. 180 S.D. 15?

Fiorani: A long test with various items – verbal analogies, verbal associations, numerical sequences, figure matrix reasoning questions, mixed in mixed problems – might work.

Jacobsen: Side question, how do highly intelligent people waste their talents?

Fiorani: When they are emotionally unstable – and there are a myriad of possible factors causing this… But what happens next is just a consequence.

Jacobsen: What differentiates the newer generation and the older generation of high-I.Q. types?

Fiorani: The newer generation is less prudent.

Jacobsen: When does speed of thought become less of a differentiating factor for seeing differences between a smart person and a smarter person? What seems like the I.Q. threshold?

Fiorani: The IQ threshold, assuming a rather even cognitive profile, is (approximately) 145 sd15.

Jacobsen: Is there a way to wash out the “basely egocentric behaviors” in the community?

Fiorani: Nope, there isn’t. Sorry for the frankness and the jaundice.

Jacobsen: What are the essential stats to start including in some of the tests moving into the future to make the tests analysis of scores more in-depth?

Fiorani: The following essential stats should be non-hidden:

• A histogram that shows how the scores on a test are distributed.
• A table regarding the items’ difficulty and robustness.
• Cronbach’s α presented & Spearman-Brown prediction formula presented.
• Correlation with standard supervised psychometric batteries.
• Correlation with other significant HRTs.
• Presentation of theoretical IQ per raw score points.

The last one is the most obvious but sometimes being didactic is not a sin.

Jacobsen: What’s new in the sociocultural and philosophical front for you?

Fiorani: The topic of diversity, equity and inclusion – in the media and entertainment industry.

Jacobsen: For your studies, what was the final result?

Fiorani: «Eccellenza».

Jacobsen: How is the romantic life now?

Fiorani: Fulfilling.

Jacobsen: What is your newest intellectual project?

Fiorani: An essay on Ludwig Wittgenstein that might see the light in August.

Jacobsen: On the individuals who claim inflated scores, there is also the factor that they don’t want to believe it themselves as much as they want the public to believe it to keep a modicum of cachet. There is the solution of leaving them alone. So, less about compassion for them and more about protection of others. In other words, what about others who may be less experienced, potentially more intelligent but naïve, on some of these aspects of the communities?

Fiorani: Nice question, again. If a neophyte looks at the scoreboards and the listings, he/she should probably reflect as follows: this is a collection of peak cognitive performances on disparate HRTs, not every score is that phantasmagorical; and the accuracy of the scores is more important than the scores themselves. In other words, which of the displayed scores are obtained on accurate psychometric products? A 160 σ15 can be (literally) more significant – or: with meaning – than a >185 σ15, it depends on the test(s).

I’d say to the neophyte: within the community, search for quality and accuracy, ignore the stratospherical, esospherical, sidereal scores, especially if the solidity of the test(s) is unknown, unclear or low.

Jacobsen: “The communities”, as I type it, I am making an assumption. I had some correspondence with someone about this, in the high-I.Q. communities, recently. The idea is the community as a homogenous, and humongous, blob or a subcultural bloc. To me, “the community “seems more like communities and variegated rather than singular, but modest in size somewhere in the middle 1000s in membership, excluding Mensa International. Does this match experience for you? What else can be subtracted, added to a proper perception of the idea of high-I.Q. communities to describe them?

Fiorani: Well, yes, I agree, this matches my experience. I use the singular – a subcultural bloc – for simplicity but I become simplistic, it’s true. A proper perception of the various souls and cores of the community isn’t easily obtainable.

Reading your interviews is helpful. Here and there, you can see different characters and sense different mental settings. There are diverse kinds of “members”.

Jacobsen: Most members of the high-I.Q. communities seem to have a reasonable skepticism, while some cases simply do not, about claimed scores or achievements on some of these harder HRTs. A more substantiated norm was published by Redvaldsen entitled “Do the Mega and Titan Tests Yield Accurate Results? An Investigation into Two Experimental Intelligence Tests”. The scores can be reduced to the aforementioned range, by you, on the Titan Test and Mega Test to 166-170 for the highest scorers on the tests by Hoeflin, e.g., Cole, Langan, May, Raniere, Rosner, Savant, Sununu, etc. This brings things down to Earth and says something legitimating about the constructs of the HRT communities when the effort is significant enough. What are the lessons from the Mega Test and the Titan Test, and the Hoeflin ensemble of societies?

Fiorani: Reasonable skepticism is healthy and I knew this paper. I think that Hoeflin has counter-replied but I don’t want to wander from my own answer. The point is that these experimental intelligence tests aren’t bad. Perhaps they’re just too ambitious, sometimes. I believe that a possible lesson learnt from the Hoeflinian galaxy is the following: the ceiling of a prestigious untimed IQ test isn’t necessarily above 180 σ16, or 176 σ15.

Jacobsen: Another side note, my other inference: The other highest scorer on Paul’s tests, who tied with Rick, Heinrich Siemens. Anyway, I have experimented with making use of both the intelligence and the expertise of the high-I.Q. communities. One of which is a series of educational interview sets on the relevant expertise of people. One example is the aforementioned Erik Haereid. He’s so well-versed in statistics and actuarial sciences as an actuary. It is in-depth. Certainly, not everyone’s cup of tea, but, also, not something everyone thinks about much, especially how much it pervades their lives. What might be some other good uses of diverse problem solving abilities? There are lots of highly involved people, who, likely, have great ideas to create things helpful to others. [Ed. If others have expertise, let’s tap it, call me!]

Fiorani: Rosner, Siemens, Hæreid: these guys are very, very clever.

Other good uses of diverse problem solving abilities? Projects related to renewable technology.

Jacobsen: Diversity, equity, and inclusion, these have been highly contentious hallmarks coming from academe. What are the first thoughts on the chosen concepts to you?

Fiorani: First thoughts are about the fact that these concepts cause disagreement, they’re divisive. A philosophical question might sound like this: why is controversial and often polarized discussion so trendy and so paradigmatic nowadays? Do the newer media interfere?

Jacobsen: What are the generic positives and negatives for you?

Fiorani: The generic positive is that people talk; the generic negative is that people talk too much.

Jacobsen: How is this of interest in media and the entertainment industry to you?

Fiorani: I try to use philosophical lenses to interpret the phenomena that permeate my life as individual of a highly complex society. Media and entertainment industry are crucial for understanding our current sociocultural macro-context and also its micro-variations.

Jacobsen: What is the content of the production on Wittgenstein?

Fiorani: It’s about the notion of philosophy as „Tätigkeit“ and „Therapie“.

Jacobsen: Disagreement can be a sign of a healthy culture. A culture of higher feedback mechanisms within individuals and between people. It can be toxic too. What are the forms of this disagreement and divisiveness?

Fiorani: Yes, disagreement can be a sign of intellectual vitality, it’s true. Though we need to understand if the disagreement facilitates a proper dialogic instance or not. In multiple cases, you see a non-dialogic approach.

Divisiveness concerns the representation of the (so called) minority groups. Joe Feagin, a well-known sociologist, has described the fundamental characteristics of a minority group.

The topic is too ample, I don’t want to be or seem trivial.

Jacobsen: “Very nice question”, “Why is controversial and often polarized discussion so trendy and so paradigmatic nowadays?

Fiorani: Hahahah, these questions require a dissertation – and I’m not joking. I must limit myself for a criterion of practicality and convenience. Polarized reflections require less effort, you spend less time and less mental energy. We go too fast, we don’t valorize profoundness. Instagram reels or TikTok shorts, etc. etc., represent the immediacy and impulsiveness of consuming, the commodification and barbarization of thoughts, of concepts, of the concept. We don’t reflect enough, we don’t take our time – literally. Choosing a side, and doing so intensely, vibrantly, rapidly, is a shortcut. We like shortcuts.

Jacobsen: “Do the newer media interfere?”

Fiorani: Without a doubt. There no longer is a life completely outside them.

Consider my previous answer, too.

Jacobsen: Kirk Kirkpatrick calls a phenomenon the “American Disease” and Rosner calls it “Superempowered” (Jacobsen, 2018; Jacobsen & Rosner, 2017). Is the degree of divisiveness a reflection of increasing assholery?

Fiorani: You are right, yes.

Jacobsen: When should people put on the breaks on their mouths? What’s the speed limit here?

Fiorani: Let me quote the French preacher Joseph Dinouart and his L’art de se taire (1771), first part, first chapter:

«1. On ne doit cesser de se taire, que quand on a quelque chose à dire qui vaut mieux que le silence.

[…]

1. 6. Jamais l’homme ne se possède plus que dans le silence: hors de là, il semble se répanfre, pour ainsi dire, hors de lui-même, et se dissiper par le discours, de sarte qu’il est moins à soi, qu’aux autres.
   7. Quand on a une chose importante à dire, on doit y faire una attention particulière: il faut se la dire à soi-même, et après cette précaution, se la redire […].

[…]

1. 10. Le silence tient quequefois lieu de sagesse à un home borne, et de capacité à un ignorant.
   11. On est naturellement porté à croire qu’un homme qui parle très peu, n’est pas un grand génie, et qu’un autre qui parle très peu, n’est pas un grand génie, et qu’un autre qui parle trop, est un homme étourdi, ou un fou. Il vaut miex passer puor ne point être un génie du premier ordre, en demeurant souvent dans le silence, que pour un fou, en s’abandonnant à la démangeaison de trop parler. […]».

[Ed. pp. 5-8.]

Didn’t you believe that a polemist born 307 years ago would have answered to your question, did you?

(Of course, if necessary, I might translate, but I don’t know an official English edition of the text.)

Jacobsen: With silence as an indication of restraint, not necessarily genius, and loquaciousness potentially as an indicator of a madman, silence becomes a better heuristic than not. Why do diversity, equity, and inclusion, lean one into talking too much rather than too little now?

Fiorani: Certain themes are important in principle and as a matter of fact. But they are too repeated and, then, oversimplified. As users of social networks and spectators of TV shows, we see how incessant ideology can be – and also counter-ideology can be insistent. The fact is that a topic like this is no longer perceived as a niche interest, we often feel the desire (or compulsion?) to express our opinions, again and again and again. Aware or not, we are already in a circulus vitiosus. We are overstimulated and we feed the exact inner workings of the structure.

A possible solution would be creating safe places and safe moments for ourselves, to safeguard the lucidity of our mind, loosening the chains we’ve contributed to construct.

Jacobsen: What does diversity represent in its practical effects in implementation in media and the entertainment industry?

Fiorani: For example, casting actors of different ethnic groups for playing certain roles/characters – possibly avoiding stereotypes and clichés –, is a practical way to represent sociocultural diversity. This implementation helps or could help more people to feel identified, to feel represented, to feel not invisiblized, to feel not marginalized, via common narrative and psychological devices (empathy, projection, etc.).

This is a deliberately succinct answer, given summarily.

Jacobsen: How is equity implemented in the media and entertainment industry?

Fiorani: Also in this case, in representation and communication, you will need to avoid pseudo-archetypes and bromides. Then it’s up to the public ponder over the outcome.

Jacobsen: What is an outcome of inclusion as a value acted out with diversity and equity?

Fiorani: It depends. (Cf. the two previous answers.)

Jacobsen: How does Feagin define a minority group? In Canada, for instance, Christianity is undergoing a rapid diminishment. It will, probably, be less than half of the population by self-claimed identification by some time in 2024. Is it merely numbers? If so, then Christians will be a big minority as less than half in Canada. They’d already be a minority in the United Kingdom. However, it must be more nuanced in Feagin’s view. How so, if so?

Fiorani: Even if it is not polished, I will quote Wikipedia English (page: Minority group): “Joe Feagin, states that a minority group has five characteristics: (1) suffering discrimination and subordination, (2) physical and/or cultural traits that set them apart, and which are disapproved by the dominant group, (3) a shared sense of collective identity and common burdens, (4) socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not determine minority status, and (5) tendency to marry within the group”.

Jacobsen: Do you think the stagnation or reversal of the Flynn Effect is correlated with the massive introduction of these new media?

Fiorani: Reversal more than stagnation, AFAIK. Yes, I think that it is indeed correlated. This could be seen as a bias of mine but we’ll see what time – and studies and researches – will tell us.

Jacobsen: I’ve received vastly positive reception from the high-I.Q. communities. Rick Rosner called me more rational than him. Chris Langan called me a stupid little idiot. YoungHoon Kim called me a very balanced intelligence and wiser than him. I appreciate all of the compliments. They speak well of one another in general too. There are some shocking things some say about one another. They tattle, so whatever, but to me, hilariously. Less so now. Anyway, and to the point, my other sense of the communities is regular interpersonal stuff seen in any sub-culture and set of communities. People living their lives and competing mentally in their off time. That’s healthy. When it becomes someone’s identity or life, that raises eyebrows to me. That’s, probably, a normal reaction. How about you?

Fiorani: The expression used by C. Langan is a compliment? I doubt so, hahah… I agree with Rick and also with Mister Kim about your balanced intelligence.

Yes, it’s not healthy at all when it becomes someone’s identity. I’ve seen lots of cases, nevertheless. And, again, I agree: the fact staggers me. Luckily, I’m much wiser now than I was six years ago. There are shadows in my career as a test-taker but approximately an eon has passed. Life goes on and improves.

Jacobsen: What might be a good means by which to create such a space for clarity of mind?

Fiorani: Just take our time, in different situations. Consider one of the Ten Commandments: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. There’s no irony nor humor, we can glean a lot more than the literal meaning and we can also omit for a second the religious interpretation(s). Can we deduce the importance of rest, the importance of break, in our (now frenetic and hyper-demanding) lives? We can – that’s my modest view.

Jacobsen: If they’re like me, they could be working 7 days a week at an elite equestrian facility sunrise to sunset, or some other job requiring it. Down time is hard to find nowadays, for some. Even a regular 5 days and 9 to 5, they might go partying or drinking, or pursuing social activities, which might not necessarily be conducive to the creation of a safe space for thought. What about those people? How can they find the time to get their outlet, their space, their place of calm?

Fiorani: Those people still can find ways. For example, you can deem an interview with a pseudo-intellectual Italian dude as refreshing.

Jacobsen: What other factors seem to be behind the reversal of the Flynn Effect?

Fiorani: One should read papers on the matter. As a perception of mine, I see a depletion of people’s vocabulary and scarce comprehension of text. The verbal tasks (subtests) are the most g-loaded in the WAIS-IV.

Jacobsen: What are “Tätigkeit“ and “Therapie”?

Fiorani: The first term means “activity, occupation” and the essential idea is that philosophy, for Wittgenstein, is more an attitude than a doctrine or a theory. The second term means “therapy”, and the idea behind is that philosophy can take care of the chronic disease that the language itself represents.

Not everything can be summarized in a cool way.

Jacobsen: Are you married, common-law, a long-term romance, or a newer partnership?

Fiorani: A long-term romance.

Jacobsen: What are some directions for the uses of the problem-solving abilities for renewable technologies?

Fiorani: In application terms? I say to myself: let’s try not to stray beyond our scope. So, I don’t know, sorry for disillusioning.

Jacobsen: I “appreciate all of the compliments”. If it wasn’t a compliment, then I don’t appreciate it. However, in some sense, it can be considered a compliment. I’ll take it! Thank you, Mr. Christopher Michael Langan. Don’t spell his name wrong, though, I’m told it “can be interpreted as a passive-aggressive form of sacrilege”, by him. Anywho, one of my favourite stories from observing Jouve. I like how a legitimate experimental psychologist, Dr. Xavier Jouve (a.k.a., an almost literal Professor X. of the I.Q. communities), who developed some awesome tests, then transitioned abruptly into photography. That’s truly wonderful. I love that kind of stuff. Does anyone know the reason? If anyone knows, I’d love to know it.

Fiorani: No idea. His comeback is official, though. Cf. the following link: http://www.cogn-iq.org/index.htm

Jacobsen: I’m really happy for you, and the transition self-identified by you. What would you say to yourself 6 years ago?

Fiorani: About HRTs and IQ scores? Take them less seriously. About some pernicious individuals of the community? Give them little importance.

When this interview will come out, I better prepare myself to face a couple of haters and trolls, their possible lasting hatred, entirely motiveless and – in the present – unwarranted. I’m being brave against some stubborn fanatics. They give abnormal importance to small past events related to high range IQ tests. They can become suffocating…

But it doesn’t matter, I’m accepting this interview and I’m happy.

Jacobsen: What words describe this person to you?

Fiorani: The 2017 version of myself? I was emotionally immature and, sometimes, (emotionally) unstable.

My mistakes were not even close to gravity. They have been flaws, surely preventable, but just minor flaws – if I reconsider them with the cognizance of an adult person not disassociated from reality.

Jacobsen: Maybe, if not everything can be given in a cool way, the world simply doesn’t always come in neat packages?

Fiorani: Agreed.

Jacobsen: Could your own philosophical pursuits be considered a form of therapy for yourself?

Fiorani: You are insightful, I confirm. You’re right.

Jacobsen: His official comeback will raise the bar for everyone. What has been the discussion within community about this?

Fiorani: Within the community, I don’t know. Personally, I’m happy. He is ne plus ultra: professional high range testing.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on his coming back?

Fiorani: It’s great!!

Jacobsen: Brave the storm! You get used to them. Perspective: They are 2% or less of the population of the super smart. Criminal Keith Raniere is exceedingly rare. He swindled the Bronfman’s out of $150,000,000 (USD). Sara and Clare were in the equestrian world and were known to some of my bosses quite well. He was in the Mega Society alongside Marilyn, Rick, Chris, other Chris, Kevin, Richard, Ken, and the myriad of others. He is one out of a much larger number of super smart people. You’ll do fine. What would you see as the main points of maturation for you?

Fiorani: I didn’t know the names you mentioned. And I was feeling better without knowing, hahaha! I think it gives an idea about real criminals and real crimes compared to trifles and minutiae.

The main point of my maturation: understanding better each context and having a more pragmatic mindset, at times.

Jacobsen: Your “comprehensive way” of flourishing. Would you consider this eudaimonia on a personal level?

Fiorani: Yes.

About the topic, more broadly, cf.:

• Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness (1995)
• Christoph Horn, Antike Lebenskunst. Glück und Moral von Sokrates bis zu den Neuplatonikern(1998)
• Alexander Nehamas,The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault(1998)
• Edith Hall, Aristotle’s Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life (2019)

Jacobsen: What were the moments of emotional instability? Hypersensitivity, emotionally speaking, is common among the highly intelligent. It doesn’t seem like a mark of shame or guilt to me, more a signal of a longer maturation process due to the emotions catching up with the mentation.

Fiorani: It’s true.

Jacobsen: What were the flaws, minor as such?

Fiorani: Related to HRTs? Well, it has happened that I’ve discussed some items of a couple of active high range IQ tests – which is not allowed and unfair.

I was severe towards myself after that. Later I have discovered that my behavior was less worse than other behaviors of other test-takers. I have downsized the thing a lot when I’ve seen what other testees – pretty commonly – do.

In those occasions, regardless, I made a mistake. Funny (?) thing is that none of the episodes of soft cheating on HRTs entailed a successful outcome, in terms of IQ score. Because: or I didn’t submit my answers at all (so, no IQ score); or my submission has been graded but wasn’t spectacular (so, below my average). Even in the second case, and anyways, I haven’t used the earned IQ score for admission purposes in some high IQ groups. This soft cheating hasn’t brought me anywhere in multiple senses, then.

Now remembering my mistakes is helpful.

Jacobsen: Do you think Jouve would be open to an interview? He wasn’t years ago, for benign professional reasons.

Fiorani: I think he is a reserved guy but you might try.

Jacobsen: What would you consider the self-discoveries over the last several years to bring about self-therapy?

Fiorani: Knowing inner emotions more lucidly. Work in progress, though.

Jacobsen: Where might people be able to find the Wittgenstein paper, eventually?

Fiorani: Still to be decided.

Jacobsen: What is the most valuable part of this “valuable opportunity”?

Fiorani: Sharing ideas and also having a conversation about them. It’s always nice and it is also a underrated experience.

Jacobsen: What was the idea behind True IQ?

Fiorani: Having a good and articulate confirmation of your broad cognitive abilities.

Jacobsen: What is the methodology of Ivec to make overly generous scores?

Fiorani: He uses an extension of Ferguson formula. But the scores are initially hyper-inflated. So, to me, it doesn’t work.

Jacobsen: What other people in the high-I.Q. communities deserve admiration for efforts, character, scores, tests, or healthy community building? The fact of its finiteness makes it capable of cataloguing.  

Fiorani: Excluding the already mentioned ones, Kirk Raymond Butt deserves admiration. In his case, you have a combination of multiple traits. Wu Meiheng, too. For scores and character, a French guy named Jean-Mathieu Calut – the best test-taker I’ve ever met.

Several guys have huge scores, though. And several persons deserve admiration, without a doubt.

This list is obviously incomplete, hastily made.

Jacobsen: Maybe, the biggest long-term barrier isn’t necessarily the test items to HRTs becoming more robust. It’s test-takers and test-taker variety. What might increase the number of test-takers to make the sample sizes larger for more valid tests?

Fiorani: Good question but I haven’t found an answer yet, I don’t know how more people might find HRTs appealing. In fact, larger sample sizes would be a blessing.

Jacobsen: Have there been any tests based solely on the most g-loaded items possible? So, both the most g-loaded test/sub-test type and the most g-loaded items from those tests or test items or test types comparable in g-loading. That plus an online testing platform with a smart and narrow A.I. screening processing of the test items as the test evolves uniquely each time – random but not random – on an encrypted platform might give something like a secure place to get lots of people. Let’s call it “The Real g Test”, for real OGs, holla back!

Fiorani: They tried something (most g-loaded items possible) but I don’t know if it’s just chimeric…

Jacobsen: What is the best article on high-I.Q. psychology ever written or known to you?

Fiorani: Lohman, David F.; Foley Nicpon, Megan (2012). “Chapter 12: Ability Testing & Talent Identification”: this one is nice.

But there are plenty of good articles.

Jacobsen: By the way, why did you focus on Wittgenstein, as your necro-therapist?

Fiorani: Plato has spoken about μελέτη θανάτου (meletê thanatou) or “care of death” and Heidegger has spoken about Sein-zum-Tode or “being-towards-death”. I don’t need Wittgenstein if we talk about death.

Or you mean that Wittgstein is a cadaver, νεκρός (necros)? Why him as a therapist, then? My greatest masters have died long before I was even born.

Jacobsen: “Ron Hoeflin knows”, oh, the secrets he holds. Have you see some of his magnum opus?

Fiorani: A bit, here and there.

Jacobsen: What are the components of wisdom? How is wisdom practiced and lived, and witnessed, universally in individuals in all cultures? In other words, what are its manifestations, ingredients, and enjoyable outgrowths to see in others?

Fiorani: Good judgment and moderation.

Jacobsen: I have been interviewing women in the high-I.Q. communities. Yet, the ratio is so skewed. There is the fact of more variance between males and females. Yet, I don’t think the skew of the degree of variance tracks the degree of variance of membership in the communities. Why? I know Rick admits to joining Mensa to get a girlfriend. He even asked Marilyn vos Savant out while trying to join the Mega Society. She’s been super nice to me: She published one or two pieces of mine in her column for me.

Fiorani: Actually I’ve never understood why women don’t join high IQ societies as much as men. Let me know if you figure it out, hahaha!

Jacobsen: Is there a centralized platform for test-creators to have their work listed and linked? If not, I can, probably, make one in an article to advertise them if this helps everyone.

Fiorani: I don’t think that a centralized platform for test-authors exist.

Do as you wish but I don’t think that the creation of such platform would actually help.

Jacobsen: What would be the good standards by which to “make them more uniform” regarding test norms?

Fiorani: We’ve already talked about the detailed stats and Prousalis and Jouve. You already have an acceptable answer. (smiling)

Jacobsen: I’ve been highly involved in a number of philosophical movements – secular and religious, slightly transitioning as I see in practice or witness flaws in either philosophical foundations or sociopolitical structural outcroppings from those foundations, e.g., claiming a democratic movement and then booting properly elected executives, or claiming respect for freedom of expression and then coercing removal of articles from publications… I’m much, much less sure at the current moment. What is a philosophical stance for you, now, either in metaphysics or pragmatic living (or both)?

Fiorani: Anekāntavāda.

Jacobsen: How can the newer generation become more prudent?

Fiorani: Re-understanding the value of paideia.

Jacobsen: Who else in the communities have a great level of expertise in something niche or interesting? I’d like to email them and get another series going with them.

Fiorani: Perhaps you’ve already interviewed the most interesting ones but let’s be clear: „Was wir wissen ist ein Tropfen, was wir nicht wissen ein Ozean“. (smiling)

Jacobsen: I should write another comprehensive article on the criminals and cults coming out Mensa to the most obscure high-I.Q. societies and communities. It’s shocking. I have all the data points. It’s simply putting it together. Before knowing about Raniere, what were the worst cases known to you?

Fiorani: Silentium est aurum.

Jacobsen: Kevin Langdon in a funny recorded talk to the Triple Nine Society made a great point about the idea of screening for high intelligence for a society or a community of people, and then telling them what to do… that seems counterproductive and doomed to fail. The Mega Society and Mega Foundation split was one such case of individuality of several people exploding. It’s public and on the record. What procedures, policies, processes, ethics, norms, should be instantiated in a high-I.Q. group to minimize the increasing individuality of higher-I.Q. people, increase group participation and cooperation and mutual respect, and provide a process for booting assholes, e.g., something more than a simple “No Assholes Policy”?

Fiorani: A procedure like this is antithetical to the quiddity of such groups.

Jacobsen: Mentoring younger people when I have the opportunity is the most meaningful thing to me. One young man, who wanted to be a chef, when I was working in the restaurant industry was a bright light. After leaving to work with and around horses, he said, “Thank you for everything.” It was so moving. I wanted to cry. And I am a little bit thinking of it now. I managed to get Master Chef Craig Shelton, who is a member of the high-I.Q. communities to get me book recommendations for him (he would known better than me). I ordered the books and gave them to the young man. Have you ever mentored younger people?

Fiorani: Happy for you, it must be a gratifying feeling. (smiling)

Nope, I’ve never mentored younger people.

Jacobsen: What are other resources for people interested in joining high-I.Q. communities or learning about giftedness in general?

Fiorani: For people interested in joining high IQ societies: https://highiqtests.com/join

For people interested in learning about giftedness: Sternberg, Robert J.; Davidson, Janet E., eds. (2005). Conceptions of Giftedness.

Jacobsen: What are your goals now?

Fiorani: Keep working on my Self, writing my own story.

Bibliography

Dinouart, L’Art de se taire, principalement en matière de religion, Paris, G. Desprez, 1771.

Jacobsen, S.D. & Rosner, R.G. (2017, April 6). Superempowered: How We Turned Into A Nation (And A Planet) Of Assholes. Retrieved from https://in-sightpublishing.com/2022/02/19/superempowered-how-we-turned-into-a-nation-and-a-planet-of-assholes/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2018, February 8). Ask A Genius (or Two): Conversation with Kirk Kirkpatrick and Rick Rosner on the “American Disease” and “Super Empowerment”. Retrieved from www.in-sightjournal.com/american-disease-super-empowerment.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2022a, March 8). Conversation with Paul Cooijmans on the Tenth Anniversary of the Glia Society: Administrator, Glia Society (8). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/cooijmans-8.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2022b, April 1). Debunking I.Q. Claims Discussion with Chris Cole, Richard May, and Rick Rosner: Member, Mega Society; Co-Editor, “Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society”; Member, Mega Society (2). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/debunking-2.

Footnotes

[1] “Debunking I.Q. Claims Discussion with Chris Cole, Richard May, and Rick Rosner: Member, Mega Society; Co-Editor, “Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society”; Member, Mega Society (2)” states:

Jacobsen: Some, in fact more than a few, claim extrapolations well beyond the norms of the mainstream tests, e.g., the WAIS and the SB, which cap out at or around 4-sigma. Assuming legitimacy of the claims, then, the individuals would be highly intelligent, but the claims can range between a little over 4-sigma to 6-sigma. How is this extrapolation generally seen within the high-I.Q. communities at the higher ranges?

May: I don’t know how other others generally perceive unsound or bogus extrapolations of IQ scores.

Rosner: I think the skepticism of super-high scores is generally more for specific claims than for the entire idea of being able to have an IQ that high. I think most people in the high-IQ community believe it is possible to have an IQ close to 200. But I think most people also have a reasonable idea of the rarity of scores like that. Adult IQs, the deviation scores, are based on a bell curve, where between 0 and 1 standard deviation, you have 34% of the population in a bell-shaped distribution for something like height. Between 1 and 2 SDs, you’ve got 14% of the population. Between 2 and 3, you’ve got about 1.5% of the population. Between 3 and 4, you’ve got roughly one-half percent of the population.

Let’s see, about 4 SDs, that’s only one person in 30,000 should score above 4 SDs. One person in 3,000,000 above 5 SDs. What is it? 1 person in 750,000,000 above 6 SD or so; somewhere, I’ve fucked it up, according to the standard bell curve. People also like to say that at the very far ends; there are more outliers than on the normal bell curve. That there are more high-IQs than would be given if it were a perfectly bell-shaped distribution.

But even so, you shouldn’t see more than a half-dozen or ten or twelve or whatever, people, with scores above 6 SDs. So, Paul Cooijmans has the Giga Society, which has 7 or 8 members. It is for people with IQs that are supposed to be one in a billion. So, there are 8 billion people on Earth, 8 members of the Giga Society, so that makes a certain sense, but not really. That’s as if everybody who could score at that level has taken one of his tests. That’s just obviously not true. So, way too many people scoring at the one in a billion level. It’s not like the Giga Society has 300 members.

Cooijmans is pretty rigorous in his norming and testing. So, if you have taken a Cooijmans test and scored at or close to the Giga Society, legitimately, Cooijmans has written in the past about people’s attempts to cheat on his tests, but I don’t think there has been a successful attempt in decades. So, people are pretty accepting that if you get a Giga level score on his tests; that you’re legitimately pretty smart. The claims of super high-IQs, there are legit claims based on performing well on ultra-high IQ tests or kicking ass as a kid on a test like the Stanford-Binet or the Wechsler. Someone can say, “As a kid, I scored a 200,” or something.

That’s another thing I won’t go into. People who claim high-IQ scores and are lying are generally not sophisticatedly lying. They’re saying something that cannot hold up at all. I don’t know if there are many or any sophisticated lies about having a super-high-IQ. So, then there are people outside the high-IQ community who are skeptical about the whole thing, but no one is really worried a lot about it, because: who gives a shit?

Also, if you want to say something, or know something that I’m not aware of, that contradicts what I’m saying, go ahead.

See Jacobsen (2022b).

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11^th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3). January 2023; 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani

American Psychological Association (APA 7^th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2023, January 15). Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3). In-Sight Publishing. 11(2). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. D. Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 11, n. 2, 2023.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17^th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2023. “Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (Spring). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17^th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 11, no. 2 (January 2023). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2023) ‘Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 11(2). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani>.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2023, ‘Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani>.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9^th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.11, no. 2, 2023, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Luca Fiorani on Everything Under God’s Sun: Member, Ultima IQ Society (3) [Internet]. 2023 Jan; 11(2). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/fiorani

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.