Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Three)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 16:38:28 -0600
To: MegaList@brokersys.com
From: Steve Schuessler <bahai@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] About the MegaList
About the MegaList (This may be reprinted, in its entirety, if you like)
History:
It started with just a couple of recent qualifiers, and grew to five. I intentionally invited people in approximately reverse chronological order--the most recent members, I reasoned, had the most in common. In fact this small group got along fine--they introduced themselves, saw in the others that rare spark of wide-awake sentience, and I knew I had something special. After several months, the messages tapered off, and it was time to expand the list, adding another six.
This gradual growth was planned beforehand. My object was to a achieve a delicate balance--to allow people time to become active with the least amount of disorientation, while at the same time hoping for a ongoing, self-perpetuating dialogue (In an early issue of the journal, Ron Hoeflin conjectured that the minimum number for a viability was eight.).
Unfortunately, this was interpreted by one long-standing member as an intentional exclusion. My apologies; I never intended for this list to represent any faction, and at this time I invite all members in good standing (active or not) to send email to me at <bahai@brokersys.com> .
Sincerely,
Steve Schuessler
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:38:28 EST
Subject: [MegaList] Megalist
To: megalist@brokersys.com
I disagree with Steve's characterization of what took place on the Megalist.
What happened to me was that I started discussing ethics and got slapped down
by all three respondants, for no morally worthy reason. Do you wonder,
Steve, that the conversation died out?
Chris Langan is a crackpot. I objected to his inclusion on this list and I
STILL object.
Bob Dick
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 00:37:11 -0600
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Steve Schuessler <bahai@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Megalist
Bob,
The events I discussed took place before the beginning of 1999. You were invited about
Jan 6, 1999. Make no mistake, my comments are easily verified by the first 5 or so
participants--you just weren't here yet, that's all (approximately reverse chronological
order-'LIFO', (Last-In mega, First On megalist)).
At 07:38 PM 4/3/99 EST, you wrote:
>I disagree with Steve's characterization of what took place on the Megalist.
>What happened to me was that I started discussing ethics and got slapped down
>by all three respondants, for no morally worthy reason. Do you wonder,
>Steve, that the conversation died out?
>
I was a respondant; 2:14 a.m. on 3/28/1999. I don't remember what I said as a slap-down
at all, just a series of wierd metaphors. Maybe my phrase, "people on this list are
not immune from short-cut defense mechanisms to forstall clambering onto what appears to
be an accellerating curved-trajectory caliope of unintentional misinterpretations"
was over the top. I can never tell---!
>Chris Langan is a crackpot. I objected to his inclusion on this list and I
>STILL object.
>
Your opinion is recognized. I guess I would be defenseless against such a label myself (see the above).
>Bob Dick
>
-Steve
Steve - http://www.brokersys.com/~bahai icq 24607437
The Mega Society Page
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 14:24:28 -0500
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Steve Schuessler <bahai@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] A new world's record! 14h 05m 25s
They said it couldn't be done!
We have achieved a new world's record.
Elapsed times (adjust for time zones and Daylight Savings):
Sat, 3 Apr 1999 05:33:03 -0600
Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:55:34 -0800
Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:38:28 EST
Some said it would only be minutes before the list degraded into a barrage of 'crackpot',
'looney', and 'crank' arrows. Seconds, some said.
Well the new record stands at 7 hours, 22 minutes, and 31 seconds for the first volleys fired, and at 14 hours, 5 minutes, and 25 seconds before total meltdown!!!
Everybody contributed to this epic achievement.
--I would like to thank you on behalf of the group and I hope we passed the audition.
-Steve
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 21:47:39 EDT
Subject: [MegaList] To his face
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:21:29 -0500
From: "Robert J. Dick" <rdick@idt.net>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
I request that Chris Langan be kept off this list. It is not because he
is mentally ill--after all, I am too. There are several reasons.
1) He does not recognize the legitimacy of the legitimate Mega Society.
2) His illness is disabling, not in the sense of being unable to pass
the Mega Test, but in the sense of being unable to create interaction
between his ideas and the ideas of others. Ie he could not establish
effective communication in the realm of ideas even were he admitted.
3) He is good at calculating, but bad at thinking, and he is oblivious
to the latter failing. Ie he is a fool.
Bob Dick
4/4/99: I stand by these comments now. RD
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] To his face
Robert Dick writes:
> I request that Chris Langan be kept off this list. It is not because he
> is mentally ill--after all, I am too. There are several reasons.
Robert has no business making such a request. I'm a member in good
standing, and Robert started this dispute by insulting my sanity. Unlike
Bob, I actually register as quite sane by psychometric standards (if
need be, I'm willing to have this tested by a qualified professional
psychologist; if I fail to qualify as sane, I'll pay, but if I pass, the
WCF pays). I didn't want to have to bring Bob's disability into the
discussion, but he left me no option. Actually, I sympathize with him, and
I'm sure that most other members do too.
>
> 1) He does not recognize the legitimacy of the legitimate Mega Society.
The meaning of the word "legitimate" in the Mega Society context is not as
obvious as Robert and his WCF (West Coast Faction) cronies pretend. Read
the document posted at http://www.angelfire.com/ms/mega/ByWay.html for the
proper background on this issue.
>
> 2) His illness is disabling, not in the sense of being unable to pass
> the Mega Test, but in the sense of being unable to create interaction
> between his ideas and the ideas of others. Ie he could not establish
> effective communication in the realm of ideas even were he admitted.
My "failure" to "create interaction" between my ideas and the WCF
is
analogous to the failure of a veterinarian to coax a sick, frightened
turtle out of its shell for medication. The ideas are there in plain
English, ready for "interaction with" all Mega Society members. It's been
that way for a decade.
>
> 3) He is good at calculating, but bad at thinking, and he is oblivious
> to the latter failing. Ie he is a fool.
Actually, I'm good at both, and I stand ready to prove it. In reality,
I've been tested on this score by various WCF members on several occasions
and have vindicated myself at their expense every time (their resentment
over this fact is really what this whole dispute finally comes down to). I
admit that I behave a bit foolishly sometimes - as do we all - but Bob
Dick is not the man to point this out. Casting the first stone is
reserved for him who is without sin, and Bob is a sinner.
Happy Easter, everybody!
Chris Langan
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:55:36 EDT
Subject: Re: [MegaList] To his face
To: megalist@brokersys.com
In a message dated 4/4/99 10:15:31 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
> Robert Dick writes:
>> I request that Chris Langan be kept off this list. It is not because he
>> is mentally ill--after all, I am too. There are several reasons.
> Robert has no business making such a request. I'm a member in good
> standing,
Chris is a member in good standing only in the sense that Jefferson Davis was
a US citizen in good standing during the Civil War.
> and Robert started this dispute by insulting my sanity. Unlike
>Bob, I actually register as quite sane by psychometric standards
I too now register quite sane.
> (if need be, I'm willing to have this tested by a qualified professional
> psychologist; if I fail to qualify as sane, I'll pay, but if I pass, the
> WCF pays). I didn't want to have to bring Bob's disability into the
> discussion, but he left me no option. Actually, I sympathize with him, and
> I'm sure that most other members do too.
>
>> 1) He does not recognize the legitimacy of the legitimate Mega Society.
>The meaning of the word "legitimate" in the Mega Society context is not
as
>obvious as Robert and his WCF (West Coast Faction) cronies pretend. Read
>the document posted at http://www.angelfire.com/ms/mega/ByWay.html for the
>proper background on this issue.
>
>> 2) His illness is disabling, not in the sense of being unable to pass
>> the Mega Test, but in the sense of being unable to create interaction
>> between his ideas and the ideas of others. Ie he could not establish
>> effective communication in the realm of ideas even were he admitted.
>My "failure" to "create interaction" between my ideas and the
WCF is
>analogous to the failure of a veterinarian to coax a sick, frightened
>turtle out of its shell for medication. The ideas are there in plain
>English, ready for "interaction with" all Mega Society members. It's been
>that way for a decade.
The number of humans other than Chris who have interacted successfully with
the CTMU is exactly zero.
>
> 3) He is good at calculating, but bad at thinking, and he is oblivious
> to the latter failing. Ie he is a fool.
Actually, I'm good at both, and I stand ready to prove it. In reality,
I've been tested on this score by various WCF members on several occasions
and have vindicated myself at their expense every time (their resentment
over this fact is really what this whole dispute finally comes down to).
He has vindicated himself only in the eyes of himself. Everybody else
"resented" what he did--my point exactly.
I admit that I behave a bit foolishly sometimes - as do we all - but Bob
Dick is not the man to point this out. Casting the first stone is
reserved for him who is without sin, and Bob is a sinner.
Happy Easter, everybody!
Chris Langan
>
Read what Chris had to say to Guy Fogleman and tell me we need him on this
list.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:19:16 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: To his face
At 11:06 PM 4/4/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:
> Robert Dick writes:
<snip>
>> 3) He is good at calculating, but bad at thinking, and he is
>> oblivious to the latter failing. Ie he is a fool.
> Actually, I'm good at both, and I stand ready to prove it. In
> reality, I've been tested on this score by various WCF members
> on several occasions and have vindicated myself at their expense
> every time (their resentment over this fact is really what this
> whole dispute finally comes down to).
Chris is like one of those cartoon characters who run off the edge
of a cliff but don't fall until they look down. Using his keen mega-
level mind, he keeps his eyes lifted up to heaven so he won't have
to admit the truth.
Years ago, I was at one of those jousts using woooden swords put
on by the Society for Creative Anachronism. One of the fighters
received a number of solid blows, the kind that they're supposed
to admit are killing or disabling, but each time, although others
complained that he had lost the fight, he said "I dinna feel it," in
a phony Scots accent. Finally, the judges disqualified him.
Chris' poor sportsmanship is very much like that of this man. He
has lost the debates in *Noesis* big time, but his pride won't let
him admit it, and this is why he won't accept the will of the Mega
membership, but has set up his own "Mega Society" and his own
"Noesis."
> I admit that I behave a bit foolishly sometimes
For example? I've never seen Chris admit that he was wrong about
anything.
> - as do we all - but Bob Dick is not the man to point this out.
Anyone may point out the truth.
> Casting the first stone is reserved for him who is without sin,
> and Bob is a sinner.
The folks that Jesus shamed were about to stone a prostitute--i.e.,
one guilty of a *victimless crime*. Unfortunately for the accuracy
of this analogy, there are many victims of Chris' unbalanced and
intemperate actions, including the entire membership of the Mega
Society, which is being misrepresented to the public by Chris
Langan.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:54:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: To his face
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
> Chris is like one of those cartoon characters who run off the edge
> of a cliff but don't fall until they look down. Using his keen mega-
> level mind, he keeps his eyes lifted up to heaven so he won't have
> to admit the truth.
Coming from Wile E. Coyote's stunt double himself, I (again) consider this
a compliment. And in the intrepid tradition of the great Mr. Coyote, I'm
willing to put my keen Mega-level mind to the test, right here, right now.
So why don't you tell everyone exactly what you mean, Kev? Be specific -
we want to hear about specific statements I've made in a mathematical or
philosophical context that support your evaluation.
>
> Years ago, I was at one of those jousts using woooden swords put
> on by the Society for Creative Anachronism. One of the fighters
> received a number of solid blows, the kind that they're supposed
> to admit are killing or disabling, but each time, although others
> complained that he had lost the fight, he said "I dinna feel it," in
> a phony Scots accent. Finally, the judges disqualified him.
>
> Chris' poor sportsmanship is very much like that of this man. He
> has lost the debates in *Noesis* big time, but his pride won't let
> him admit it, and this is why he won't accept the will of the Mega
> membership, but has set up his own "Mega Society" and his own
> "Noesis."
Did I really lose? Again, I request that you be specific. Since I lost
"big time", you must have some examples in mind. Let's have them (and
please, don't try to slime out of this with the usual "everybody but Chris
already knows that he lost, and I'm determined not to waste my breath, and
blah blah blah." We have a lot of new people in the crowd now, and I
think they deserve a *precise* explanation.
> > > I admit that I behave a bit foolishly sometimes
> > For example? I've never seen Chris admit that he was wrong about
> anything.
And ditto for Foghorn Langdon. But I, at least, have an excuse. I was
arguing with people (Kevin and Chris Cole) who are seldom right.
>
> Anyone [including Bob Dick] may point out the truth.
Only after they've been sufficiently medicated to see it.
> > Casting the first stone is reserved for him who is without sin,
> > and Bob is a sinner.
>
> The folks that Jesus shamed were about to stone a prostitute--i.e.,
> one guilty of a *victimless crime*. Unfortunately for the accuracy
> of this analogy, there are many victims of Chris' unbalanced and
> intemperate actions, including the entire membership of the Mega
> Society, which is being misrepresented to the public by Chris
> Langan.
I'm sure that everyone weeps bitter tears over your protracted
victimization, Kevin. As they would for any other prostitute.
Chris Langan
From: "Guy Fogleman" <gcfogleman@worldnet.att.net>
To: <megalist@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Impressions so far
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 00:29:17 -0400
It seems that this list has either been dead or engaged in some kind of fist
fight. Maybe that's just the nature of the beast.
Buy, as Jack Nicholson, playing the President of the US, asked in "Mars
Attacks!": "Why can't we all just ... get along? <grin>"
- Guy
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 04:17:58 -0500
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Steve Schuessler <bahai@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Pokémon or Telamon
Zimbardo Schuessler
Today's research committees could never approve such an inhumane two weeks, but they had no idea in 1971. This was the now-famous experiment at Stanford University, where bright, ostensibly normal and well-adjusted students somehow transformed themselves into a gang of viscous, vile, and even sadistic bullying prison guards.
See http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html
The experiment demonstrated how fragile--indeed tenuous--is the line that separates our civil, rational, humanity from rabid Droogs in Kubric's 'A Clockwork Orange'.
http://w1.1436.telia.com/~u143600114/ACO/aco.html
What is the implication for us here, the crčme de le crčme of IQ? Are we to debase ourselves as those with lesser capacity do--so easily, so often, so automatically?
Are we too naught but slaves to our limbic systems?
As we stand on the threshold of the 2001, it's time-nee overdue-to reevaluate first principles.
http://gs.cdnow.com/graphics/albcover/52/c19852.50.32.gif
To wit--What IS the mega society? What would we like it to be? Can we accomplish anything as a group?
In our current state, sadly, the answer to the last question is a resounding no.
Ready or not, we are unimaginably close to emergence from obscurity. All it would take would be one brief segment on Entertainment Tonight, one joke on Dave Letterman, to land the power of widespread public exposure right in our laps.
Last week, even Dr. John Lienhard (met him three times) lambasted "Good Will Hunting" and extreme giftedness on "The Engines of Our Ingenuity". The media hyenas would take eerie pleasure in laughing at our backward bickering, dredging up the old 'curse of genius' compensation myth still keeping Duff-swilling Homer Simpson and the couch-potato consumers complacently ignorant.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1430.htm
To outside observers, it would appear we were self-selected for inflexibility, suspicion, contentiousness. Whatever happened to originality, curiosity, and consultation?
It is time, Members, to approach a new realm-and look inside it, turn it inside out, and find a novel set of solutions. We've made good at only one half of our name, 'Mega', and sorely neglected the other, namely,
'Society'
How do we approach this? All at once? Imagine melding us all into an effective, dynamic,
research institute next week. Big laugh! We'd fall on our Mega butts.
Take an inventory. We have demonstrated an ability to solve complex problems on paper. We also have weaknesses, individually; blind spots. An eighteen-wheeler could drive through mine with plenty of elbow room. I suggest we each contact one other member; preferably one who is as different from ourselves as possible. The reticent/bold, struggling/successful entrepreneur, alienated from academia/multiple advanced degreed, UK/US/Canada; no doubt you can think of others. This is not mere mentoring, since between our members the 2-way learning is inevitable. My idea is Conspiracy Dyads. Interested in brains? Start a "C.D. to Transect Tracts Jam Session" with Paul. I invite Chris Langan to a "C.D. to Make Mega's Image on the Internet Better and Listen To Are You Experienced".
http://www.rockhall.com/induct/hendjimm.html
Most of us could point out a Hamiltonian.
A few of us on this list could also identify a Jeffersonian--Thomas--as the visionary, the
statesman, endued with practical wisdom who helped shape the modern world. How? Surprise!
He collaborated with another genius, James Madison, who provided the tempered practical
wisdom necessary for enduring accomplishment.
Collaborative effort is a technique we neglect at our extinction. Michaelson-Morley, Watson-Crick, Lennon-McCartney--how these dynamic dyads took the world by storm! We can, too; or remain in the prison of paroxysmal petulancy--cartoon Pokémon--not Attic telamon.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/192730.asp
NPR in the rear-view mirror are closer than they appear.
--Steve Schuessler dit l'Espérance
Steve - http://www.brokersys.com/~bahai icq 24607437
The Mega Society Page
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Pokémon or Telamon
Steve writes:
"To wit--What IS the mega society? What would we like it to be? Can we
accomplish anything as a group?
In our current state, sadly, the answer to the last question is a
resounding no.
Ready or not, we are unimaginably close to emergence from obscurity. All
it would take would be one brief segment on Entertainment Tonight, one
joke on Dave Letterman, to land the power of widespread public exposure
right in our laps.
Last week, even Dr. John Lienhard (met him three times) lambasted "Good
Will Hunting" and extreme giftedness on "The Engines of Our Ingenuity".
The media hyenas would take eerie pleasure in laughing at our backward
bickering, dredging up the old 'curse of genius' compensation myth still
keeping Duff-swilling Homer Simpson and the couch-potato consumers
complacently ignorant."
Steve has hit the nail on the head here. The Mega Society is ripe for
recognition. Actually, this has been the case for a while, at least in the
sense that we have the content to make our mark. Unfortunately, this has
nothing to do with the weak, vacillating statistical analyses of Kevin
Langdon. Ergo, he prefers to keep the Mega Society tucked away where no
stray breeze can assail his psychometric house of cards. He and his Droogs
have done a sterling job of it so far...in fact, let's all give Kevin a
big hand (over his mouth)!
That's the real problem here...Kevin and his appendages want to hide
because they know that his theories would wither under the concentrated
attention of the psychometric community (think of a toadstool teleported
to Mercury). This is what Kevin really means when he says that "only I"
(Chris Langan) place any importance on prestige. Steve and I are now on
record as believing that the Mega Society, as distinct from Kevin Langdon,
deserves it and could sustain it, especially in the sense of providing an
intellectual counterweight to academia.
What do others think?
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Pokémon or Telamon
> >> To wit--What IS the mega society? What would we like it
> >> to be? Can we accomplish anything as a group?
> >>
> >> In our current state, sadly, the answer to the last question is
> >> a resounding no.
>
> It depends on what you want to accomplish. These societies
> already provide peer groups for smart people and a platform
> for these people to discuss a broad range of subjects, unlike
> the narrowness of specialized academic circles.
Too bad that "discussing a broad range of subjects" has always taken a
back seat to political power plays like the one that is currently in
progress regarding the proprietorship of this list.
>
> >> Ready or not, we are unimaginably close to emergence from
> >> obscurity. All it would take would be one brief segment on
> >> Entertainment Tonight, one joke on Dave Letterman, to land
> >> the power of widespread public exposure right in our laps.
>
> These societies will be "discovered" by the mainstream media
> sooner or later, and the world-shrinking force of the Internet
> practically guarantees that it will be sooner.
No. Kevin et al have successfully stopped the mainstream media from taking
much interest in this group for a decade now, and could - if given their
way and allowed to serve as its unchallenged spokesmen - probably do so
for a long time to come. E.g., although we were written up twice by the
Wall Street journal, Chris Cole and Jeff Ward studiously avoided conveying
any impression that the Mega Society has actually solved any problems of
note. It was a circle jerk - two or three self-anointed bigshots passed
the reporter around among themselves and lubed her/him right up. Until the
media have reason to suspect that the Mega Society can live up to its
name, they will take no interest.
> > >> Last week, even Dr. John Lienhard (met him
three times) > >> lambasted "Good Will Hunting" and extreme giftedness
on
> >> "The Engines of Our Ingenuity". The media hyenas would
> >> take eerie pleasure in laughing at our backward bickering,
> >> dredging up the old 'curse of genius' compensation myth
> >> still keeping Duff-swilling Homer Simpson and the couch-
> >> potato consumers complacently ignorant.
>
> The media *will* lambaste us. It plays the same part in the
> collective unconscious that defense mechanisms play for each
> of us individually. It is guaranteed that the media will belittle
> anything they don't understand. (Of course, it doesn't work
> the other way round: the fact that people make fun of
> something is no indicator of its validity.)
>
> > Steve has hit the nail on the head here. The Mega Society is
> > ripe for recognition. Actually, this has been the case for a
> > while, at least in the sense that we have the content to make
> > our mark.
>
> It doesn't really depend on "content." The existence of a chain
> of high-IQ societies, from Mensa at one end to Mega at the
> other, and the contentiousness that adds spice to these societies,
> is what is of interest, from the point of view of a feature-story
> editor. Of course, the differences within a society such as Mega
> can be expressed in a dignified way or not.
When we are challenged, it will be on two issues. (1) How can you
discriminate at the Mega level? (2) What have you accomplished that would
lend credence to your claim? The second issue is one of content.
>
> > Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the weak, vacillating
> > statistical analyses of Kevin Langdon.
>
> Funny that other statisticians don't see it that way.
Which ones? We've already been through your "Arthur Jensen loves me!"
routine, in which Jensen told an entirely different story. Now we're ready
for a new routine.
> > Ergo, he prefers to keep the Mega Society tucked away where
> > no stray breeze can assail his psychometric house of cards. He
> > and his Droogs have done a sterling job of it so far...in fact,
> > let's all give Kevin a big hand (over his mouth)!
>
> So it my BIG LOUD MOUTH that's keeping things quiet. Go
> figure.
Yes. Your big loud mouth, which chops away like an unmuffled Huey within
the sonic barrier you've contrived to erect around this Society, keeps
things quiet with the people that count.
>
> > That's the real problem here...Kevin and his appendages want
> > to hide because they know that his theories would wither under
> > the concentrated attention of the psychometric community
> > (think of a toadstool teleported to Mercury).
>
> This is why Chris never attracts enough supporters to have his
> own way. If you disagree wtih him you're a Droog and an
> appendage.
>
> My psychometric work doesn't break any new theoretical ground,
> though it does establish some basic methods for applying existing
> theory to the extreme right tail of the normal curve. There is an
> ongoing discussion of high-range psychometrics in *Noesis*, and
> other discussions in the journals of the other high-IQ societies
> and on the Brain and Boffin boards. The Prometheus Society
> Membership Committee published an important report recently.
> The Prometheus Society 1998/99 Membership Committee Report,
> available from the Prometheus Treasurer, Fred Britton, P.O. Box
> 1489, Point Roberts, WA 98281 ($5 U.S., $6, non-U.S), is a 96-
> page document containing much useful data on tests used for
> admission by the various high-IQ societies. Although I disagree
> with the conclusions of the MC, the report is a major contribution
> to the high-range-psychometrics literature.
Your work is highly controversial and lacks clear support within the
greater psychometric community...in fact, even among psychometricians
within the Triple Nine and Prometheus societies, which have used your
tests.
>
> > This is what Kevin really means when he says that "only I"
> > (Chris Langan) place any importance on prestige. Steve and I
> > are now on record as believing that the Mega Society, as distinct
> > from Kevin Langdon, deserves it and could sustain it, especially
> > in the sense of providing an intellectual counterweight to
> > academia.
>
> > What do others think?
>
> There's a difference between "prestige" and being well enough
> known that more potential members can find us, which has a
> definite value.
What Kevin means here by "definite value" is apparently the testing fees
collected by those claiming to be in charge of qualification. Where's the
value for the rest of us?
> As for "providing an intellectual counterweight to academia,"
> this is to be desired but is getting far, far ahead of where we are.
>
Not really. I'm ready to mix it up with academia, Kev. What about you? And
more importantly, what about qualified members of the group?
Chris L.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:09:20 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Re: Pokémon or Telamon
At 02:27 PM 4/5/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:
> Steve writes:
>> To wit--What IS the mega society? What would we like it
>> to be? Can we accomplish anything as a group?
>>
>> In our current state, sadly, the answer to the last question is
>> a resounding no.
It depends on what you want to accomplish. These societies
already provide peer groups for smart people and a platform
for these people to discuss a broad range of subjects, unlike
the narrowness of specialized academic circles.
>> Ready or not, we are unimaginably close to emergence from
>> obscurity. All it would take would be one brief segment on
>> Entertainment Tonight, one joke on Dave Letterman, to land
>> the power of widespread public exposure right in our laps.
These societies will be "discovered" by the mainstream media
sooner or later, and the world-shrinking force of the Internet
practically guarantees that it will be sooner.
>> Last week, even Dr. John Lienhard (met him three times)
>> lambasted "Good Will Hunting" and extreme giftedness on
>> "The Engines of Our Ingenuity". The media hyenas would
>> take eerie pleasure in laughing at our backward bickering,
>> dredging up the old 'curse of genius' compensation myth
>> still keeping Duff-swilling Homer Simpson and the couch-
>> potato consumers complacently ignorant.
The media *will* lambaste us. It plays the same part in the
collective unconscious that defense mechanisms play for each
of us individually. It is guaranteed that the media will belittle
anything they don't understand. (Of course, it doesn't work
the other way round: the fact that people make fun of
something is no indicator of its validity.)
> Steve has hit the nail on the head here. The Mega Society is
> ripe for recognition. Actually, this has been the case for a
> while, at least in the sense that we have the content to make
> our mark.
It doesn't really depend on "content." The existence of a chain
of high-IQ societies, from Mensa at one end to Mega at the
other, and the contentiousness that adds spice to these societies,
is what is of interest, from the point of view of a feature-story
editor. Of course, the differences within a society such as Mega
can be expressed in a dignified way or not.
> Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the weak, vacillating
> statistical analyses of Kevin Langdon.
Funny that other statisticians don't see it that way.
> Ergo, he prefers to keep the Mega Society tucked away where
> no stray breeze can assail his psychometric house of cards. He
> and his Droogs have done a sterling job of it so far...in fact,
> let's all give Kevin a big hand (over his mouth)!
So it my BIG LOUD MOUTH that's keeping things quiet. Go
figure.
> That's the real problem here...Kevin and his appendages want
> to hide because they know that his theories would wither under
> the concentrated attention of the psychometric community
> (think of a toadstool teleported to Mercury).
This is why Chris never attracts enough supporters to have his
own way. If you disagree wtih him you're a Droog and an
appendage.
My psychometric work doesn't break any new theoretical ground,
though it does establish some basic methods for applying existing
theory to the extreme right tail of the normal curve. There is an
ongoing discussion of high-range psychometrics in *Noesis*, and
other discussions in the journals of the other high-IQ societies
and on the Brain and Boffin boards. The Prometheus Society
Membership Committee published an important report recently.
The Prometheus Society 1998/99 Membership Committee Report,
available from the Prometheus Treasurer, Fred Britton, P.O. Box
1489, Point Roberts, WA 98281 ($5 U.S., $6, non-U.S), is a 96-
page document containing much useful data on tests used for
admission by the various high-IQ societies. Although I disagree
with the conclusions of the MC, the report is a major contribution
to the high-range-psychometrics literature.
> This is what Kevin really means when he says that "only I"
> (Chris Langan) place any importance on prestige. Steve and I
> are now on record as believing that the Mega Society, as distinct
> from Kevin Langdon, deserves it and could sustain it, especially
> in the sense of providing an intellectual counterweight to
> academia.
> What do others think?
There's a difference between "prestige" and being well enough
known that more potential members can find us, which has a
definite value.
As for "providing an intellectual counterweight to academia,"
this is to be desired but is getting far, far ahead of where we are.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: Pokémon or Telamon
Regarding Kevin's last post, readers will note that both it and my
response to it are in the preceding post. By magically invoking Kevin's
kindred spirit, Papa Joe (Stalin), I was able to preconstruct his
entire communication in ectoplasmic form.