one helluva smart guy

[it.]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Chris Langan apparently has the highest IQ in America. I was talking about him with a friend who says that Langan has the potential to be one of those guys who revolutionizes a field, any field he wants. But I say it wouldn't necessarily pan out for biomedical research, simply because it's so experimental. What do you guys think?

 

[PostalWookie]

IQ doesn't mean that much in research. Things like creativity and sheer persistence sometimes make for a much better scientist than sheer brainpower alone

 

[it.]

IQ doesn't mean that much in research. Things like creativity and sheer persistence sometimes make for a much better scientist than sheer brainpower alone

surely, though, in the astronomical IQ range, which Langan is in, there must be additional cognitive perks to sheer brainpower? but i agree, creativity and igenuity are key for brilliance, or what i like to call, feynmanesque

 

[xanthines]

Exactly.

We have a problem with a couple of post-docs in our lab now, where they'll contiually talk themselves out of doing experiments. They're good problem-solvers, but they suck at exploratory research.

Sometimes thinking too much is bad. Just do it. Nike.

-X

But I say it wouldn't necessarily pan out for biomedical research, simply because it's so experimental. What do you guys think?

 

[dl2dp2]

uh, is this the chris langan who doesn't believe in evolution?

i doubt he'd succeed in anything...except eating evangelical conservative's [deleted]



PS I scanned his unintelligible website. truly unintelligible, I'm trained in mathematics. This is SO good for duping the public. I swear if you mix words like "cognitive endormorphism" and "metamorphic singulate gyrus" and "finite state adenomatous polyposis"...anything could happen

 

[it.]

uh, is this the chris langan who doesn't believe in evolution?

i doubt he'd succeed in anything...except eating evangelical conservative's [deleted]



PS I scanned his unintelligible website. truly unintelligible, I'm trained in mathematics. This is SO good for duping the public. I swear if you mix words like "cognitive endormorphism" and "metamorphic singulate gyrus" and "finite state adenomatous polyposis"...anything could happen

i don't think langan disbelieves evolution. have you read his paper on CTMU? i agree that there is a lot of technical jargon, and his writing style isn't the easiest to read, but from what little I've read and understood, he doesn't sound like a total dumba$$. I'll have to read the whole paper, but the guy has been on tv, etc, so i'm guessing langan knows what he's talking about, or at least more so than me.

 

[dl2dp2]

George W Bush has been on TV. I don't really want to comment on whether he knows what he's talking about.

Chris Langan could be a philosohper I suppose, but he doesn't have enough insight to be sympathetic to contemporary fashions (maybe a bit too dense) in analytic philosophy or literary criticism. To say that he's a philosopher is akin to saying Ayn Rand or Ron Donald Hubbard are a philosophers...which, technically, isn't false. Terminology is a waste of time if they don't mean anything. (Well, except to dupe the public.) This has been pointed out by Alan Sokal (google him 🙂 if you want) and his cohorts. So I guess this meaninglessness comes out of both conservative and liberal camps.

I don't really buy Sokal's argument completely though. I think if you read most of the serious inquiries in postmodern literary criticism, they do mean SOMETHING. Analytical philosophy of science is still a productive field, particularly regarding novel frontier fields like neuroscience and astrophysics. And there's a convergence between social science, neuropsychology etc. This is all within the realm of scholarly inquiry.

Langan and his colleagues in "intelligent design", however, never really wanted to be part of that scholarly inquiry. Their frame of reference is not "hooked up" so to speak to the rest of the secular academic culture. (BTW, the proper nouns in quotation marks in my above post are all randomly made up things that have absloutely no meaning. And yet they somehow sound technical and "smart". I'm referencing Sokal a bit here.) Now this being the MD/PhD forum and all 🙂 and me being really bored.... Do I think someone from some farm in Nicaragua can prove Reimann's Hypothesis or find a cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis...maybe the probability is smaller than life evolving from random mutations.

i don't think langan disbelieves evolution. have you read his paper on CTMU? i agree that there is a lot of technical jargon, and his writing style isn't the easiest to read, but from what little I've read and understood, he doesn't sound like a total dumba$$. I'll have to read the whole paper, but the guy has been on tv, etc, so i'm guessing langan knows what he's talking about, or at least more so than me.

 

[mjs]

Don't think too hard on the merits of super high IQs.

Richard Feynman, arguably the most innovative American theoretical physicist of the past 100 years, had an IQ in the 120s or 130s depending on who you ask. Despite this slightly above average score*, anyone who has read anything about him will recognize he is one smart dude. He also wrote the best lectures on physics ever.

While I can't provide a citation, I've heard it argued that any IQ above 130 is more or less a merit badge. It's nice to talk about, but without much correlation to achievement in life outside of IQ tests. Maybe Javert could comment on this, he's into systems neuroscience stuff.

But more importantly, who is this langan guy and why on earth should I care?

* I guarantee you most medical students can post this up and I've had to define 'ramifications' to classmates.

 

[it.]

Don't think too hard on the merits of super high IQs.

Richard Feynman, arguably the most innovative American theoretical physicist of the past 100 years, had an IQ in the 120s or 130s depending on who you ask. Despite this slightly above average score*, anyone who has read anything about him will recognize he is one smart dude. He also wrote the best lectures on physics ever.

While I can't provide a citation, I've heard it argued that any IQ above 130 is more or less a merit badge. It's nice to talk about, but without much correlation to achievement in life outside of IQ tests. Maybe Javert could comment on this, he's into systems neuroscience stuff.

But more importantly, who is this langan guy and why on earth should I care?

* I guarantee you most medical students can post this up and I've had to define 'ramifications' to classmates.

certainly, i consider things like creativity, intution, etc to be just as or more important than a high IQ. you give a perfect example of this, feynman, a hero of mine. the guy was absolutely brilliant. a description of feynman by mathematician mark kac:

"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." - Mark Kac

chris langan, however, has an IQ so high, he may very well be the smartest guy in america in terms of raw computing power. i just think that things we perceive as creativity may perhaps be a result of his more efficient thinking. see, i've met people with the IQ's in the 150's and 160's, and i must say that these guys are just an another level from, say, your average college grad. langan is measured at 192!

oh and langan is just a curiosity. he's got an interesting theory of reality called CTMU

 

[mjs]

langan is measured at 192!

oh and langan is just a curiosity. he's got an interesting theory of reality called CTMU

What's CTMU?

 

[it.]

What's CTMU?

cognitive theoretic model of the universe

 

[mjs]

What does it explain?

 

[Maebea]

Don't think too hard on the merits of super high IQs.

Richard Feynman, arguably the most innovative American theoretical physicist of the past 100 years, had an IQ in the 120s or 130s depending on who you ask. Despite this slightly above average score*, anyone who has read anything about him will recognize he is one smart dude. He also wrote the best lectures on physics ever.

While I can't provide a citation, I've heard it argued that any IQ above 130 is more or less a merit badge. It's nice to talk about, but without much correlation to achievement in life outside of IQ tests.
QUOTE]

Word dat! I have an IQ of 142 and I'm stuck running a frickin' MD-PhD program. 😛

 

[Neuronix]

Word dat! I have an IQ of 142 and I'm stuck running a frickin' MD-PhD program. 😛

Stuck eh? Can I have the job? I'm not at all qualified, but it sounds like fun. 😉

 

[dl2dp2]

Dude, this guy's messing with you. Chris Langan belongs to a gang of pseudo-scientists collectively known as "intelligent design theorists". They are trying to get evolution out of textbooks in Kansas and Pennsylvania as we speak.

Richard Dawkins said something like if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age, you are either stupid or just plain wicked. Chris Langan purportedly has a 140 IQ, so by definition he can't be stupid. Hence, he must be wicked.

What does it explain?

 

[it.]

Dude, this guy's messing with you. Chris Langan belongs to a gang of pseudo-scientists collectively known as "intelligent design theorists". They are trying to get evolution out of textbooks in Kansas and Pennsylvania as we speak.

Richard Dawkins said something like if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age, you are either stupid or just plain wicked. Chris Langan purportedly has a 140 IQ, so by definition he can't be stupid. Hence, he must be wicked.

i'm pretty sure his iq was measured at 192 or 195, thus my curiosity about him.

Dude, this guy's messing with you. Chris Langan belongs to a gang of pseudo-scientists collectively known as "intelligent design theorists". They are trying to get evolution out of textbooks in Kansas and Pennsylvania as we speak.

where did you hear this? are you sure? cuz that would take off 999999 iq points in my book

 

[mjs]

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale. It is bomb. Read it instead of doing school and lab work.

So in addition to player hating, what does this Langan fellow do with his theories and such?

 

[xanthines]

Personally, I think IQ is pretty overrated. I've never heard a good definition of what intelligence is, much less a way to quantify it.

Anyway, I thought Marilyn vos Savant had the highest recorded IQ and no one could beat her since the scoring method changed.

The other thing to think about, is that high-IQ societies are absolutely useless. They do nothing but solve puzzles and find new methods of social awkwardness. Even the founder of Mensa was rather disappointed in his creation calling its members "mental masturbators."

I feel like IQ is one of those magical, mystical things people talk about that end up being non-existent, like unicorns, leprechauns, and unitarians. It also reminds me of the weird questions in the pre-allo forums like the pedigrees of GPAs. Who cares and what difference does it make?

If I sound bitter, it's because I think it's a crying shame that smart people (whatever that means) can't get it together enough to change the world for the better. It's somehow more noble to solve the NY Times crossword puzzle in under X minutes, than to alleviate famine or disease.


-X

 

[it.]

Speaking of Richard Dawkins, I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale. It is bomb. Read it instead of doing school and lab work.

So in addition to player hating, what does this Langan fellow do with his theories and such?

i haven't read the entire paper (it's so damn long!), and admittedly, i'm not sure i understand his theory very well, so i don't want to misinterpret it for you, but here is the article if you have the time http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

you can just google langan, and you'll find a bunch of stuff as well

 

[sjkpark]

i don't think langan disbelieves evolution. have you read his paper on CTMU? i agree that there is a lot of technical jargon, and his writing style isn't the easiest to read, but from what little I've read and understood, he doesn't sound like a total dumba$$. I'll have to read the whole paper, but the guy has been on tv, etc, so i'm guessing langan knows what he's talking about, or at least more so than me.

I was told by a consultant (a smart dude) that intelligence is all about explaining technical jargon in simple terms so that everybody can understand. He is certainly very good at that!

 

[xanthines]

I believe us common-folk call that "he talk to ya real good" otherwise known as good communication.

Corollary: Explaining a simple term in technical jargon that no one can understand is called politics. 😉

-X

I was told by a consultant (a smart dude) that intelligence is all about explaining technical jargon in simple terms so that everybody can understand. He is certainly very good at that!

 

[Rupert Pumpkin]

.

 

[mjs]

Sluox, I'll never doubt you again!

 

[tr]

i don't think langan disbelieves evolution. have you read his paper on CTMU? i agree that there is a lot of technical jargon, and his writing style isn't the easiest to read, but from what little I've read and understood, he doesn't sound like a total dumba$$. I'll have to read the whole paper, but the guy has been on tv, etc, so i'm guessing langan knows what he's talking about, or at least more so than me.

I'm reading it now. Although I agree with sluox that 'being on TV' means less than nothing for intellectual credibility, I disagree that Langan is not 'hooked up' to the forefront of scientific inquiry. Rather, I see him as part of a small but growing group of people who are recognizing the requirement that we include perception/subjectivity/observation/consciousness in our models if we wish to move forward with a description of the universe.

Science has come very far using the 'objective' model, but I think it is becoming ever more clear that there are aspects of our experience it is impossible to explain under these parameters (i.e., the invalid assumption that an 'objective', non-experiential point of view exists).

I'm starting to sound like one of the people that Sokal made fun of, but it's difficult to get across what I mean in this limited space. Before I get attacked for being some kind of po-mo fanatic, let me say that this is not at all what I mean. Let me try it this way:

QM has basically come right out and shoved it in our faces: Hey, you guys! Look! The universe you observe is *critically dependent on the fact that you are observing it!* People have been trying since the 1920's to understand this novel, amazing piece of information under the old, 'objective' paradigm, and the result has been nothing but a monumental failure. Time to try something different, ya think?

I don't know whether Langan's specific model is correct (read: useful) in its particulars (I suspect that it is not), but I do think he is on to this very basic principle: that we must integrate subjectivity/observation into our physical theories.

Langan's choice of the term 'intelligent design' is unfortunate, because it seems to place him in a league with anti-evolutionist hystericals; but I don't think his ideas and theirs have much to do with each other. As far as I can tell he is talking about the more basic principles that give rise to the physical universe we observe, not about evolutionary biology. But he ought to find some different terminology if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

 

[mjs]

Langan's choice of the term 'intelligent design' is unfortunate, because it seems to place him in a league with anti-evolutionist hystericals; but I don't think his ideas and theirs have much to do with each other. As far as I can tell he is talking about the more basic principles that give rise to the physical universe we observe, not about evolutionary biology. But he ought to find some different terminology if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Let's be honest and say no one with an IQ oh, say, over 170 (or a copyeditor) puts the words "intelligent design" in a document without intending to evoke its full connotations. And while I don't want to bother to read his stuff, a simple google search puts him in the same school as the would-be school board overlords.

Here's some non-message board snark.

 

[JimiThing]

Personally, I think IQ is pretty overrated. (. . .)

Anyway, I thought Marilyn vos Savant had the highest recorded IQ and no one could beat her since the scoring method changed.
-X

1) Agreed.
2) vos Savant's smart. William James Sidis was ****ing brilliant. Well, as brilliant as someone who devotes their life to memorizing train schedules can be. His story makes for good reading if you have a chance though.
3) We all know that George Malley was the smartest person ever. I mean, he learned the Portugese language in 20 minutes.