Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part One)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 05:33:03 -0600
To: MegaList@brokersys.com
From: Steve Schuessler <bahai@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] News FLASH
News FLASH
In ancient Greece, the philosophers argued for over 200 years whether a barrel filled with ashes would hold the same volume of water as an empty barrel.
Although Greece was a wellspring of conceptual and theoretical advancement, today's scientists might wonder why didn't they just drag out some barrels and…
But wait--we must try to understand from their point of view. Our modern belief in the importance of experiment was as yet inchoate, unformed--
In the spirit of modern scientific method, I have decided to conduct an experiment--namely, to invite our most controversial member, Chris Langdon, onto this list.
Some of you expressed uneasiness about such a move. Before you leap like lemmings off
the list, I urge you to wait for a few data points first; you may be in for some
surprises.
Areté,
-Steve Schuessler
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:05:46 -0800
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
At 05:33 AM 4/3/99 -0600, Steve Schuessler wrote:
> News FLASH
> In ancient Greece, the philosophers argued for over 200 years
> whether a barrel filled with ashes would hold the same volume
> of water as an empty barrel.
> Although Greece was a wellspring of conceptual and theoretical
> advancement, today's scientists might wonder why didn't they
> just drag out some barrels and…
> But wait--we must try to understand from their point of view.
> Our modern belief in the importance of experiment was as yet
> inchoate, unformed--
The Greeks are perhaps the first example in history of a people
who *didn't* place primary importance on *experiment*, as
opposed to theoretical wiseacring. The latter tendency was
developed to a greater extent by European civilization, which
had flourished for fifteen hundred years before science really
took hold (and it's only *dominated* the Western outlook in
the current century).
> In the spirit of modern scientific method, I have decided to
> conduct an experiment--namely, to invite our most controversial
> member, Chris Langdon, onto this list.
Are you going to invite Kevin Langan, too? :-)
I expressed the opinion some time ago that if there's an going to
be a Mega Society online list, all members of Mega should have
the right to participate, and I still think that's the way to go.
Nonetheless, it's rather arrogant of you, Steve, to ask everyone's
opinion, get a clear consensus that Chris Langan *should not be
invited to join*, and then invite him in.
Therefore, I suggest that, before we have any more disagreements,
ownership and control of this list be turned over to the Mega
Society. If this is not done, I will establish another list. This is no
idle threat. When Fred Vaughan announced that he would
unilaterally toss anyone who submitted what, in his sole judgement,
was "rancorous" material for distribution on Prometheus' *fire*
list, I set up another list, called theft_of_fire.
> Some of you expressed uneasiness about such a move. Before
> you leap like lemmings off the list, I urge you to wait for a few
> data points first; you may be in for some surprises.
> Areté,
> -Steve Schuessler
This message may be one of them.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 15:06:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
cc: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
Thank you, Steve, for your kind invitation. You should be aware, however,
that the next edition of Noesis/ECE is already at the printers, so this
invitation will not be reflected in its content.
I do note that Kevin is insisting that the Megalist be turned over to the
Mega Society proper. Technically, that's the right thing to do...unless
that means that it will be "mediated" by Kevin. If that's what it means,
I'd rather see it in your hands.
I've recently become a subscriber to the Prometheus Society journal, and
notice that Kevin is taking strong exception to certain moves on the parts
of his numerous adversaries in that group. However, I also notice that
Kevin used my non-invitation to this list as an opportunity to make
certain unfavorable remarks about me (the evidence was posted on the
Internet some time ago).
I'm also concerned lest Kevin inadvertently censor (or censure) valid
material that he cannot personally understand...material emanating from
qualified members.
I hope that this matter gets solved quickly, so that we can move along to
something with real content.
Again, thank you.
Chris Langan
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:40:05 -0800
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
I received two copies of the message I'm responding to. This is a
frequent problem resulting from technology that sometimes makes
it unclear whether a message has really been sent.
At 03:06 PM 4/3/99 -0500, Chris Langan wrote:
>Thank you, Steve, for your kind invitation. You should be aware,
> however, that the next edition of Noesis/ECE is already at the
> printers, so this invitation will not be reflected in its content.
> I do note that Kevin is insisting that the Megalist be turned over
> to the Mega Society proper. Technically, that's the right thing to
> do...unless that means that it will be "mediated" by Kevin. If that's
> what it means, I'd rather see it in your hands.
If that was what it meant *I'd* rather see it in Steve's hands, too.
"Mediating" *Noesis* is already pushing the limits of what I can
handle while still having a life.
> I've recently become a subscriber to the Prometheus Society
> journal, and notice that Kevin is taking strong exception to
> certain moves on the parts of his numerous adversaries in that
> group.
What these "adversaries" are trying to do is to change Prometheus'
admission standards to include a lot of standard tests that don't
discriminate at the four-sigma level, and "Thinkfast," the screwy
and unnormed "chronometric" test that's available on the Web
from the same people who run the "Brain Board."
This is being done because the Mega and Titan tests have been
compromised by publication of answers to many items on the
Internet. It's understandable that some people are afraid that the
societies may wind up with no usable entrance tests, but what's
needed is the development of new high-range tests, not the use
of tests designed for the general population. There will be more
on this subject in one of the issues of *Noesis* now being
prepared for publication.
> However, I also notice that Kevin used my non-invitation to
> this list as an opportunity to make certain unfavorable remarks
> about me (the evidence was posted on the Internet some time
> ago).
So? I've made similar remarks in *Noesis*. Who posted private
material from this list and where?
> I'm also concerned lest Kevin inadvertently censor (or censure)
> valid material that he cannot personally understand...material
> emanating from qualified members.
If you mean Paul Maxim, he's not a member and he can eat my
shorts.
> I hope that this matter gets solved quickly, so that we can move
> along to something with real content.
> Again, thank you.
> Chris Langan
I don't see anything much to solve. An e-mail list is different from
a printed journal in that everybody is free to write what he likes,
without passing it by an editor. I have no objection to reading
material from Chris Langan, though I often disagree with him.
However, I do expect this list to remain closed to Paul Maxim. If
forwarded messages from the number one enemy of this society
and others like it start appearing here, further action will need to
be taken. We've held the line against admitting that bastard and I
don't intend to sit by and allow him to disseminate his poison here.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:36:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
I dunno, Kev. I only hit send once. I'll try moving "megalist" from CC to
TO and delete the primary recipient.
> This is being done because the Mega and Titan tests have been
> compromised by publication of answers to many items on the
> Internet. It's understandable that some people are afraid that the
> societies may wind up with no usable entrance tests, but what's
> needed is the development of new high-range tests, not the use
> of tests designed for the general population. There will be more
> on this subject in one of the issues of *Noesis* now being
> prepared for publication.
The problem, of course, is that equating IQ and power-IEQ is quite
problematic. It's true that we need new high-range tests. But we also need
to label them properly, and accept them along with real IQ tests.
As far as accepting people with high childhood IQ's is concerned, it's
our lot in life. It's the price we pay for being a "high IQ society"
discriminating at the mega level. I, and I suspect many others, like the
idea of belonging to a society that can ethically and legally use that
description. It's true that power tests are what allow us to do this. But
disallow standard IQ tests, and you destroy the basis for our claim.
> > However, I also notice that Kevin used my non-invitation
to > > this list as an opportunity to make certain unfavorable remarks
> > about me (the evidence was posted on the Internet some time
> > ago).
>
> So? I've made similar remarks in *Noesis*. Who posted private
> material from this list and where?
This would be a little more credible if the posting had not included your
express permission to post it (at least, that's what I seem to remember).
I refer, of course, to the carnage of late on the Brain and Boffin Boards.
Let me be more specific. What you said, in addition to the run-of-the-mill
slander, was: "I think you did fine. You're welcome to use the information
contained in my interlineated comments above to supplement your remarks."
Does this refresh your memory?
> > I'm also concerned lest Kevin inadvertently censor (or censure)
> > valid material that he cannot personally understand...material
> > emanating from qualified members.
>
> If you mean Paul Maxim, he's not a member and he can eat my
> shorts.
No, Kevin. You can eat Paul's shorts, and to some extent, you already
have. He's in, because that's a logical implication of the way we've
always defined this group...in terms of mega-level *IQ*. The low
correlations between power-IEQ and IQ tests rule out, or if you like, cast
considerable doubt on, your conjecture that they are measuring the
exact same thing. You know that as well as I do.
> I don't see anything much to solve. An e-mail list is different from
> a printed journal in that everybody is free to write what he likes,
> without passing it by an editor. I have no objection to reading
> material from Chris Langan, though I often disagree with him.
It's not quite that simple, and you know it. You've accused me in so many
words of being a crackpot. Although I've asked you to justify your
accusation, you've failed repeatedly and spectacularly to do so. Instead,
I've caught *you*. Remember? If you make me go through it again, I will.
> However, I do expect this list to remian closed to Paul Maxim. If
> forwarded messages from the number one enemy of this society
> and others like it start appearing here, further action will need to
> be taken. We've held the line against admitting that bastard and I
> don't intend to sit by and allow him to disseminate his poison here.
>
Paul doesn't own a computer and is therefore not a potential participant.
Furthermore, thanks to the fact that he is indeed a member of the Society
(having scored 176 and 178 on reputable IQ tests at the age of 10), he is
no longer its enemy. Kevin, you want to make sure that you don't confuse
the issue of whose "enemy" Paul really is. He's *your* enemy, because you
pretty much begged him to be. The rest of us have no argument with him.
Chris Langan
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:55:34 -0800
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
At 04:36 PM 4/3/99 -0500, Chris Langan wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
> I dunno, Kev. I only hit send once. I'll try moving "megalist" from
> CC to TO and delete the primary recipient.
Ah, that explains it. That's generally a good idea, so the person you're
responding to doesn't get two copies.
>> This is being done because the Mega and Titan tests have been
>> compromised by publication of answers to many items on the
>> Internet. It's understandable that some people are afraid that the
>> societies may wind up with no usable entrance tests, but what's
>> needed is the development of new high-range tests, not the use
>> of tests designed for the general population. There will be more
>> on this subject in one of the issues of *Noesis* now being
>> prepared for publication.
> The problem, of course, is that equating IQ and power-IEQ is
> quite problematic. It's true that we need new high-range tests. But
> we also need to label them properly, and accept them along with
> real IQ tests.
They're not perfectly correlated, of course, but neither are particular
tests of either type always highly correlated with others *within* the
same type. Accepting "real IQ tests" is a problem because even
Prometheus would either have to accept scores within a point or two
of their ceilings (and none of the standard tests reaches 4.75 sigma
for adults), or accept age-corrected childhood scores.
> As far as accepting people with high childhood IQ's is concerned,
> it's our lot in life. It's the price we pay for being a "high IQ society"
> discriminating at the mega level. I, and I suspect many others, like
> the idea of belonging to a society that can ethically and legally use
> that description. It's true that power tests are what allow us to do
> this. But disallow standard IQ tests, and you destroy the basis for
> our claim.
No. What we're claiming is that the high-range power tests tap into
the same thing as the standard tests, *g* (and there is evidence that
this is the case), but at a higher level.
>>> However, I also notice that Kevin used my non-invitation to
>>> this list as an opportunity to make certain unfavorable remarks
>>> about me (the evidence was posted on the Internet some time
>>> ago).
>> So? I've made similar remarks in *Noesis*. Who posted private
>> material from this list and where?
> This would be a little more credible if the posting had not included
> your express permission to post it (at least, that's what I seem to
> remember).
I've occasionally announced that I don't mind the redistribution of
particular messages, but I don't that I gave blanket permission--not
that it matters, as I generally assume that what I write on the high-IQ-
society lists may travel further.
> I refer, of course, to the carnage of late on the Brain and Boffin
> Boards. Let me be more specific. What you said, in addition to the
> run-of-the-mill slander, was: "I think you did fine. You're welcome
> to use the information contained in my interlineated comments
> above to supplement your remarks." Does this refresh your memory?
I remember the language, but not the entire content of the message
involved.
>>> I'm also concerned lest Kevin inadvertently censor (or censure)
>>> valid material that he cannot personally understand...material
>>> emanating from qualified members.
>> If you mean Paul Maxim, he's not a member and he can eat my
>> shorts.
> No, Kevin. You can eat Paul's shorts, and to some extent, you
> already have. He's in, because that's a logical implication of the
> way we've always defined this group...in terms of mega-level
> *IQ*.
No. At first, we *didn't* define our requirements (does anybody
understand what prinicples Chris Harding relied on in inviting
pepole to join 606?) But for the past decade or so, we've defined
our admission requirements as *what the members have voted to
accept as qualifying scores*. The tests Paul Maxim took aren't on
the list.
> The low correlations between power-IEQ and IQ tests rule out,
> or if you like, cast considerable doubt on, your conjecture that
> they are measuring the exact same thing. You know that as well
> as I do.
Some of the correlations are quite respectable, and these are
generally the correlations with the best of the standard tests, like
the SAT, the Terman Concept Mastery, and the Raven.
>> I don't see anything much to solve. An e-mail list is different
>> from a printed journal in that everybody is free to write what
>> he likes, without passing it by an editor. I have no objection to
>> reading material from Chris Langan, though I often disagree
>> with him.
> It's not quite that simple, and you know it.You've accused me
> in so many words of being a crackpot. Although I've asked you
> to justify your accusation, you've failed repeatedly and
> spectacularly to do so.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that your pot is intact.
> Instead, I've caught *you*. Remember? If you make me go
> through it again, I will.
Go through it all you like.
>> However, I do expect this list to remian closed to Paul
>> Maxim. If forwarded messages from the number one
>> enemy of this society and others like it start appearing
>> here, further action will need to be taken. We've held the
>> line against admitting that bastard and I don't intend to sit
>> by and allow him to disseminate his poison here.
> Paul doesn't own a computer and is therefore not a potential
> participant. Furthermore, thanks to the fact that he is indeed a
> member of the Society (having scored 176 and 178 on reputable
> IQ tests at the age of 10), he is no longer its enemy.
Hitler had a high IQ.
> Kevin, you want to make sure that you don't confuse the issue
> of whose "enemy" Paul really is. He's *your* enemy, because
> you pretty much begged him to be. The rest of us have no
> argument with him.
> Chris Langan
On the contary, I simply gave Paul my opinion of the CTMM as
an admisison test for Prometheus when he asked me for it. Ever
since I told him (and the officers of the societies) that it's a lousy
test, he's been trying to "get" me, by fair means or foul.
The man is a fool and a hothead. I know of many people in the
societies who've tried to befriend him and gotten burned badly.
We don't need people like that in Mega. He's already thereatened
to take legal action against the societies; he has proably been
deterred from doing so only by lack of resources and lack of a
legal leg to stand on.
I understand that Mr. Maxim has brought lawsuits against the
ISPE in several states, all of which have been dismissed. So
much for Mr. Maxim being only "my" enemy. He's the enemy
of anyone who gets in the way of his attempts to prop up his
weak self-image by forcing others to recognize his "genius."
Kevin Langdon
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 18:51:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
>
> >> This is being done because the Mega and Titan tests have been
> >> compromised by publication of answers to many items on the
> >> Internet. It's understandable that some people are afraid that the
> >> societies may wind up with no usable entrance tests, but what's
> >> needed is the development of new high-range tests, not the use
> >> of tests designed for the general population. There will be more
> >> on this subject in one of the issues of *Noesis* now being
> >> prepared for publication.
>
> > The problem, of course, is that equating IQ and power-IEQ is
> > quite problematic. It's true that we need new high-range tests. But
> > we also need to label them properly, and accept them along with
> > real IQ tests.
>
> They're not perfectly correlated, of course, but neither are particular
> tests of either type always highly correlated with others *within* the
> same type. Accepting "real IQ tests" is a problem because even
> Prometheus would either have to accept scores within a point or two
> of their ceilings (and none of the standard tests reaches 4.75 sigma
> for adults), or accept age-corrected childhood scores.
Age correction for childhood scores is also problematic, at least in the
case of individual subjects. And what I mean is that since childhood
scores on standard IQ tests have often been used in the norming of
power-IEQ tests, you can't disallow them without undermining the validity
of the "IQ numbers" assigned to raw scores. It's like sawing the legs off
your stool.
> > > As far as accepting people with high childhood IQ's is concerned,
> > it's our lot in life. It's the price we pay for being a "high IQ
society"
> > discriminating at the mega level. I, and I suspect many others, like
> > the idea of belonging to a society that can ethically and legally use
> > that description. It's true that power tests are what allow us to do
> > this. But disallow standard IQ tests, and you destroy the basis for
> > our claim.
>
> No. What we're claiming is that the high-range power tests tap into
> the same thing as the standard tests, *g* (and there is evidence that
> this is the case), but at a higher level.
The burden of proof is on you to establish that IEQ tests are
measuring g. To observe that you haven't done this would only be
belaboring the obvious. Remember, the quantity "g" is statistically
defined with respect to factor analyses run on standard IQ tests, not
power IEQ tests.
> I've occasionally announced that I don't mind the redistribution of
> particular messages, but I don't that I gave blanket permission--not
> that it matters, as I generally assume that what I write on the high-IQ-
> society lists may travel further.
> > I refer, of course, to the carnage of late on the Brain and Boffin
> > Boards. Let me be more specific. What you said, in addition to the
> > run-of-the-mill slander, was: "I think you did fine. You're welcome
> > to use the information contained in my interlineated comments
> > above to supplement your remarks." Does this refresh your memory?
>
> I remember the language, but not the entire content of the message
> involved.
That was pretty good. Got another one?
>
> >>> I'm also concerned lest Kevin inadvertently censor (or censure)
> >>> valid material that he cannot personally understand...material
> >>> emanating from qualified members.
>
> >> If you mean Paul Maxim, he's not a member and he can eat my
> >> shorts.
>
> > No, Kevin. You can eat Paul's shorts, and to some extent, you
> > already have. He's in, because that's a logical implication of the
> > way we've always defined this group...in terms of mega-level
> > *IQ*.
>
> No. At first, we *didn't* define our requirements (does anybody
> understand what prinicples Chris Harding relied on in inviting
> pepole to join 606?) But for the past decade or so, we've defined
> our admission requirements as *what the members have voted to
> accept as qualifying scores*. The tests Paul Maxim took aren't on
> the list.
Neither are yours. Moreover, the list of which you speak is outdated, both
psychometrically and politically. That moves us directly up to the
present. And the *present* issue is the feasibility of voting on items of
logic. To understand what I mean by "items of logic", take a look at what
I just wrote about sawing the legs off your stool.
> > > The low correlations between power-IEQ and IQ tests rule out,
> > or if you like, cast considerable doubt on, your conjecture that
> > they are measuring the exact same thing. You know that as well
> > as I do.
>
> Some of the correlations are quite respectable, and these are
> generally the correlations with the best of the standard tests, like
> the SAT, the Terman Concept Mastery, and the Raven.
Not good enough by a long shot. But again, you already know this.
>
> >> I don't see anything much to solve. An e-mail list is different
> >> from a printed journal in that everybody is free to write what
> >> he likes, without passing it by an editor. I have no objection to
> >> reading material from Chris Langan, though I often disagree
> >> with him.
>
> > It's not quite that simple, and you know it.You've accused me
> > in so many words of being a crackpot. Although I've asked you
> > to justify your accusation, you've failed repeatedly and
> > spectacularly to do so.
>
> The burden of proof is one you to prove that your pot is intact.
And I've put the proof in your hands. True, you couldn't make sense of it.
But I've recently had no trouble making myself understood on Internet
message boards whose participants claim much lower IQ's than do you.
Therefore, you're the only one who still has to prove his equilibrium.
Let's start with your highly intelligent scheme to challenge California
law on the grounds of "freedom of assembly", when it is crystal clear that
no one is preventing you from assembling.
> > Instead, I've caught *you*. Remember? If you make me go
> > through it again, I will.
> Go through it all you like.
I'm sure we'll be getting around to that in due time, now that the lid's
off the box.
>
> >> However, I do expect this list to remian closed to Paul
> >> Maxim. If forwarded messages from the number one
> >> enemy of this society and others like it start appearing
> >> here, further action will need to be taken. We've held the
> >> line against admitting that bastard and I don't intend to sit
> >> by and allow him to disseminate his poison here.
>
> > Paul doesn't own a computer and is therefore not a potential
> > participant. Furthermore, thanks to the fact that he is indeed a
> > member of the Society (having scored 176 and 178 on reputable
> > IQ tests at the age of 10), he is no longer its enemy.
>
> Hitler had a high IQ.
Maybe you know something I don't. Is Paul a National Socialist?
>
> > Kevin, you want to make sure that you don't confuse the issue
> > of whose "enemy" Paul really is. He's *your* enemy, because
> > you pretty much begged him to be. The rest of us have no
> > argument with him.
>
> On the contary, I simply gave Paul my opinion of the CTMM as
> an admisison test for Prometheus when he asked me for it. Ever
> since I told him (and the officers of the societies) that it's a lousy
> test, he's been trying to "get" me, by fair means or foul.
>
> The man is a fool and a hothead. I know of many people in the
> societies who've tried to befriend him and gotten burned badly.
> We don't need people like that in Mega. He's already thereatened
> to take legal action against the societies; he has proably been
> deterred from doing so only by lack of resources and lack of a
> legal leg to stand on.
Correction - he turned out to *have* a legal leg to stand on, remember? If
you're not in a state of profound denial, you'll admit this. And according
to what I've been reading lately in the TNS and Prometheus journals, there
are people in these groups who might register similar disappointments
regarding their relationships with *you*. A lot of them, in fact.
>
> I understand that Mr. Maxim has brought lawsuits against the
> ISPE in several states, all of which have been dismissed. So
> much for Mr. Maxim being only "my" enemy.
I was speaking, of course, of the Mega Society.
Chris Langan
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 21:28:33 -0800
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH
At 06:51 PM 4/3/99 -0500, Chris Langan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
>>>> This is being done because the Mega and Titan tests have been
>>>> compromised by publication of answers to many items on the
>>>> Internet. It's understandable that some people are afraid that the
>>>> societies may wind up with no usable entrance tests, but what's
>>>> needed is the development of new high-range tests, not the use
>>>> of tests designed for the general population. There will be more
>>>> on this subject in one of the issues of *Noesis* now being
>>>> prepared for publication.
>>> The problem, of course, is that equating IQ and power-IEQ is
>>> quite problematic. It's true that we need new high-range tests. But
>>> we also need to label them properly, and accept them along with
>>> real IQ tests.
>> They're not perfectly correlated, of course, but neither are particular
>> tests of either type always highly correlated with others *within* the
>> same type. Accepting "real IQ tests" is a problem because even
>> Prometheus would either have to accept scores within a point or two
>> of their ceilings (and none of the standard tests reaches 4.75 sigma
>> for adults), or accept age-corrected childhood scores.
> Age correction for childhood scores is also problematic, at least in the
> case of individual subjects. And what I mean is that since childhood
> scores on standard IQ tests have often been used in the norming of
> power-IEQ tests, you can't disallow them without undermining the
> validity of the "IQ numbers" assigned to raw scores. It's like sawing
> the legs off your stool.
Early childhood scores have very low correlations with adult scores.
Scores later in childhood hold up better, but a direct measurement of
adult intelligence is more reliable, and there are other problems with
many childhood tests (e.g., the Stanford-Binet, which is known to
yield far too many extremely high scores). And childhood scores *are*
positively correlated with adult IQ scores. This is taken into account
in my current norming method. All object-test/previous-test score pairs
are weighted by the squares of the correlations between the tests in the
norming sample; if the correlation is below .5, I generally don't use
that test at all.
Only a small percentage of the test scores used to norm my tests and
Dr. Hoeflin's are childhood scores, so this could only make the stool
wobble a bit at worst.
>>> As far as accepting people with high childhood IQ's is concerned,
>>> it's our lot in life.
It may be *your* lot in life, but it isn't mine. Some of us will continue
to be interested in belonging to a society based on sound psychometric
principles. If the organizational machinery of any of these societies
should be manipulated to undermine those principles, we will regroup
according to honest psychometric principles, whether Chis Langan,
Paul Maxim, or the state of California likes it or not.
>>> It's the price we pay for being a "high IQ society"
discriminating
>>> at the mega level.
There are problems with this notion, too, as I've mentioned before.
>>> I, and I suspect many others, like the idea of belonging to a
>>> society that can ethically and legally use that description.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that these two terms are
related. From a legal point of view, the societies are off the hook
*because the're not engaged in the practice of IQ testing*. The
states are not interested in the societies' admission standards, and
would be on untenable first-amendment grounds if they were. From
an *ethical* viewpoint, it is meritorious that, in the absence of
serious academic interest in high-range testing, a small number of
dedicated amateurs have constructed some statistically-well-behaved
instruments with the high ceilings required for the existence of the
super-high-IQ societies. From either perspective, the class of people
above a certain percentile level in intelligence has a right to select its
own members.
>>> It's true that power tests are what allow us to do this. But
>>> disallow standard IQ tests, and you destroy the basis for
>>> our claim.
>> No. What we're claiming is that the high-range power tests tap
>> into the same thing as the standard tests, *g* (and there is
>> evidence that this is the case), but at a higher level.
> The burden of proof is on you to establish that IEQ tests are
> measuring g. To observe that you haven't done this would only
> be belaboring the obvious. Remember, the quantity "g" is
> statistically defined with respect to factor analyses run on
> standard IQ tests, not power IEQ tests.
Just as we can think statistically in terms of sampling error of
a statistic when we randomly select a limited group of subjects
from a population, or of measurement error when we obtain a
limited number of measurements of a particular variable, so
too can we think in terms of *psychometric sampling error*
in factor analysis. In making up any collection of cognitive
tests, we do not have a perfectly representative sample of the
entire universe of all possible cognitive tests. So any one
limited sample of tests will not yield exactly the same *g* as
another limited sample. The sample values of *g* are
affected by subject sampling error, measurement error, and
psychometric sampling error. But the fact that *g* is very
substantially correlated across different test batteries implies
that the differing obtained values of *g* can all be interpreted
as estimates of a true (but unknown) *g* (in the same sense
that, in classical test theory, an obtained scores is viewed as
an estimate of a true score).
--Arthur Jensen, *The g Factor*, p. 87
<snip>
>>> I refer, of course, to the carnage of late on the Brain and Boffin
>>> Boards. Let me be more specific. What you said, in addition to
>>> the run-of-the-mill slander, was: "I think you did fine. You're
>>> welcome to use the information contained in my interlineated
>>> comments above to supplement your remarks." Does this refresh
>>> your memory?
>> I remember the language, but not the entire content of the message
>> involved.
> That was pretty good. Got another one?
Coming 'round the mountain again *does* refresh my memory. As
I recall I was encouraging Steve (or anyone else on the MegaList) to
make use of my conceptual and rhetorical constructs in responding
to you. I can't be everywhere at once and I haven't visited either the
Brain Board or the Boffin Board for a few weeks.
>>>>> I'm also concerned lest Kevin inadvertently censor (or censure)
>>>>> valid material that he cannot personally understand...material
>>>>> emanating from qualified members.
>>>> If you mean Paul Maxim, he's not a member and he can eat my
>>>> shorts.
>>> No, Kevin. You can eat Paul's shorts, and to some extent, you
>>> already have. He's in, because that's a logical implication of the
>>> way we've always defined this group...in terms of mega-level
>>> *IQ*.
>> No. At first, we *didn't* define our requirements (does anybody
>> understand what prinicples Chris Harding relied on in inviting
>> pepole to join 606?) But for the past decade or so, we've defined
>> our admission requirements as *what the members have voted to
>> accept as qualifying scores*. The tests Paul Maxim took aren't on
>> the list.
> Neither are yours.
Tough. The membership has voted, more than once, that once
you're in you're in. The real mega level on the Mega occurs at raw
score 46, and second attempts aren't permitted, so you don't have a
real mega-level score either--but who cares? Is there *anybody* on
this list who seriously doubts than both Chris Langan and I are smart
enough (in real terms, not arbitrary IQ numbers) to be in this club?
> Moreover, the list of which you speak is outdated, both
> psychometrically and politically.
If the members want to change it they can. And they'll have to
consider the issue soon, because of the compromising of the Mega
and Titan tests.
> That moves us directly up to the present. And the *present*
> issue is the feasibility of voting on items of logic.
You do seem to have a problem with voting. Why should we vote?
Why shouldn't we just make Chris Langan Philosopher-King?
> To understand what I mean by "items of logic", take a look at
> what I just wrote about sawing the legs off your stool.
Nothing wrong with the stool. You just fell off because you're
drunk on your own ego.
>>> The low correlations between power-IEQ and IQ tests rule
>>> out, or if you like, cast considerable doubt on, your conjecture
>>> that they are measuring the exact same thing. You know that
>>> as well as I do.
How could anyone know anything as well as the father of the
ultimate philosophy, the ultimate mathematics, the ultimate
physics, and the ultimate religion?
>> Some of the correlations are quite respectable, and these are
>> generally the correlations with the best of the standard tests, like
>> the SAT, the Terman Concept Mastery, and the Raven.
> Not good enough by a long shot. But again, you already know this.
"Not good enough," with no specifics, is not good enough.
>>>> I don't see anything much to solve. An e-mail list is different
>>>> from a printed journal in that everybody is free to write what
>>>> he likes, without passing it by an editor. I have no objection to
>>>> reading material from Chris Langan, though I often disagree
>>>> with him.
>>> It's not quite that simple, and you know it.You've accused me
>>> in so many words of being a crackpot. Although I've asked
>>> you to justify your accusation, you've failed repeatedly and
>>> spectacularly to do so.
>> The burden of proof is one you to prove that your pot is intact.
> And I've put the proof in your hands. True, you couldn't make
> sense of it.
Neither could any of the other geniuses around here.
> But I've recently had no trouble making myself understood on
> Internet message boards whose participants claim much lower
> IQ's than do you.
You mean that you snowed some of them?
> Therefore, you're the only one who still has to prove his
> equilibrium.
Why? You croaked the loudest in another pond where there isn't
much competition? Big deal.
> Let's start with your highly intelligent scheme to challenge
> California law on the grounds of "freedom of assembly", when
> it is crystal clear that no one is preventing you from assembling.
This is really a no-brainer. Does a group have a right to select its
own members under the Cosntittution? Duh.
>>> Instead, I've caught *you*. Remember? If you make me go
>>> through it again, I will.
>> Go through it all you like.
> I'm sure we'll be getting around to that in due time, now that the
> lid's off the box.
Told ya, Mr. "Pandora" Schuessler.
>>>> However, I do expect this list to remian closed to Paul
>>>> Maxim. If forwarded messages from the number one
>>>> enemy of this society and others like it start appearing
>>>> here, further action will need to be taken. We've held the
>>>> line against admitting that bastard and I don't intend to sit
>>>> by and allow him to disseminate his poison here.
>>> Paul doesn't own a computer and is therefore not a potential
>>> participant. Furthermore, thanks to the fact that he is indeed a
>>> member of the Society (having scored 176 and 178 on reputable
>>> IQ tests at the age of 10), he is no longer its enemy.
>> Hitler had a high IQ.
> Maybe you know something I don't. Is Paul a National Socialist?
A national embarrassment.
>>> Kevin, you want to make sure that you don't confuse the issue
>>> of whose "enemy" Paul really is. He's *your* enemy, because
>>> you pretty much begged him to be. The rest of us have no
>>> argument with him.
>> On the contary, I simply gave Paul my opinion of the CTMM as
>> an admisison test for Prometheus when he asked me for it. Ever
>> since I told him (and the officers of the societies) that it's a lousy
>> test, he's been trying to "get" me, by fair means or foul.
>>
>> The man is a fool and a hothead. I know of many people in the
>> societies who've tried to befriend him and gotten burned badly.
>> We don't need people like that in Mega. He's already thereatened
>> to take legal action against the societies; he has proably been
>> deterred from doing so only by lack of resources and lack of a
>> legal leg to stand on.
> Correction - he turned out to *have* a legal leg to stand on,
> remember? If you're not in a state of profound denial, you'll
> admit this.
It isn't true. What *is* true is that Paul managed to stir up the staff
of the California Board of Psychology, who don't know their ass
from a hole in the ground legally but have caused me a good deal
of trouble.
> And according to what I've been reading lately in the TNS and
> Prometheus journals, there are people in these groups who might
> register similar disappointments regarding their relationships with
> *you*. A lot of them, in fact.
I have certainly made enemies of a number of hypocrites, petty
tyrants, and screwballs in the societies. That happens if you stand
up to the dictators and the self-glorifiers.
>> I understand that Mr. Maxim has brought lawsuits against the
>> ISPE in several states, all of which have been dismissed. So
>> much for Mr. Maxim being only "my" enemy.
> I was speaking, of course, of the Mega Society.
> Chris Langan
And I was speaking, of course, of Czechoslovakia.
Kevin Langdon