Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Four)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:44:32 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan 4/5/99
This is a consolidated reply to Chris Langan's recent messages.
I have deleted "challenges" for which an adequate response
would require extensive research, but as for Chris' demands
for examples of his mistakes, one need look no further than
his current volley of message. I've pointed them out where
I've found them; I'm sure others on this list are also aware of
certain shortcomings of Chris' outpourings.
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:54:24 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: To his face
[Quoting me:]
>> Anyone [including Bob Dick] may point out the truth.
> Only after they've been sufficiently medicated to see it.
Again, Chris Langan's cruelty is evident.
>>> 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.
And again. (And where's the money I'm supposed to have made?)
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH (Langan)
>>>> 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.
>>> Most IQ tests are themselves normed using childhood scores.
>>> Using scores from tests normed with childhood scores isn't
>>> really that far removed from using the childhood scores directly.
>>> The inflationary effects are transitive. Use your head.
>> There is *some* truth to this, but the problem of low correlation
>> between childhood scores and adult scores is well known and
>> the norms of some of the adult tests (e.g., the college-admission
>> tests) are independent of childhood scores. Also, data that is
>> adequate in bulk may be inadequate for accurately estimating
>> an individual's "true score," especially at high levels.
> This is specious. The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
> intelligence.
The SAT is as highly *g* loaded as a lot of other "IQ tests."
> Most other IQ tests are indeed normed using childhood scores,
> and these scores have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test
> normings. The baby's already in the bath water that Kevin wants
> to throw out. He can't do this without experimental statistical
> gyrations that would curl the lip of any mainstream
> psychometrician.
There have been studies of the actutal incidence of scores in the
general population which have made it possible to place the
childhood scores in perspective. The distributions coincide
reasonably well near the mean, but less so farther from it.
>> Unlike Chris, I am not particularly concerned about "prestige."
>>
>> And as for the other members of Mega, just wait until you get
>> in Paul Maxim's way. He used to be very friendly to me, before
>> I told him that the CTMM is not a very good IQ test.
> Kevin assumes that others agree with him that prestige is alien to
> the purpose of the Mega Society. I say he's dead wrong. They
> want to do more than sit in the darkness and dutifully absorb the
> priceless insights of Great Generalist Kevin Langdon.
> And for those who don't yet know it, Paul got incensed not by
> Kevin's remarks about the CTMM, but because Kevin let his
> application for Mega membership sit around for an eternity even
> after Jeff Ward recommended acceptance, in effect treating him
> like a bump on a log (for over a year).
As I was not an officer of Mega at the time in question, one
wonders what Mr. Maxim might have expected. I did consult
with the officers of both Mega and Prometheus about Mr. Maxim's
applications, advising, in both cases, that the societies act in
accordance with the admission standards established by vote of
their respective memberships.
>>> After all, what do you think our typical member would rather
>>> be known as? A member of the world's one and only mega-
>>> level HIGH IQ SOCIETY, or a mamber of "a club selecting
>>> its members by means of high-ceiling intelligence tests having
>>> no proven relationship to IQ per se, but approved of by the
>>> great Kevin Foghorn Langdon"?
I'd rather be known as a member of a high-iq society.
<snip>
>>> Try to be rational about this. We need at least a few members
>>> with authentic mega-level IQ scores certified by the
>>> psychometric community, and as we all know, the only way
>>> to rack up those scores on the reputable standardized tests is
>>> as a child.
>> There's a problem with this: the academic psychometric
>> community has not certified *any* score on *any* test as
>> measuring IQ's at the one-in-a-million level.
> Kevin almost has a point here.
Almost thank you.
> But is he's saying that the Mega Society should rename itself
> "The 1-in-300,000 Society", who wants to buy into that? The
> fact is that we're going to accept one inadequate kind of test,
> we might as well accept the other.
That's like saying that if we have one inadequately-civilized
member, we ought to accept another.
Those are not the only options. The state of the art in high-range
psychometrics needs to advance only a small amount to produce
instruments capable of discriminating at the one-per-million
level. We can adhere to the target of a 1/10^6 admission level;
we've already grandfathered in all present members--and we
should update the date of grandfathering from time to time,
because adjustments to the meaning of scores continue to be
necessary as we learn more about high-range psychometrics. If
we're making headway, the average magnitude of the adjustments
should decline over time.
>>> Since we've always billed ourselves as a one-in-a-million
>>> high IQ society, honesty and compassion demand that we
>>> not scorn those who come to us with real mega-level IQ
>>> scores. We're not obligated to share your mean-spiritedness.
>> If you can convince a majority of Mega members that the CTMM
>> or the other tests Paul Maxim took discriminate reliably at the
>> mega level, then you have a case, but it would certainly be stupid
>> to take the trouble to vote on our qualifying scores then admit
>> someone who doesn't meet the criteria established by the
>> membership.
> IQ is not a votable issue. It's there or it isn't. In Paul's case, it's
> there, and the public education system of the City of New York
> has certified it.
Here, again, Chris has a problem with accepting the will of the
membership if it goes against his prejudices. And here, again,
Chris confuses a government bureaucracy with an authority on
psychometrics. Tell us what eminent psychometrician claims that
the CTMM discriminates at the mega level?
["Challenge" snipped.]
>>>>>> The man [Maxim; I used the term "man" loosely] 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.
>>> Right. You, Kevin Langdon, know more than does the
>>> California Medical Board, and no doubt every other body of
>>> medical and psychological authorities, about proper medical
>>> and psychological procedure. How could we have forgotten?
>> Not much of a claim. I haven't noticed a great deal of wisdom or
>> academic accomplishment on the part of government bureaucrats.
> I agree with you there. But you have to be willing to face them in
> the light, which you're evidently not willing to do.
I'll deal with those folks on an appropriately sunny day.
> They'd only come up with a battery of licensed psychometricians
> to pronounce you a fraud. You're trying to avoid that, and we all
> know it.
It may not have to go that far. It may be possible to resolve the
matter at an earlier stage--or I may come to the conclusion that it's
better to operate outside California. And if it does come to that,
there'll be licensed psychometricians on my side, too.
>> "...and all you Langdonoids can shove your Easter eggs up your
>> asses!"
> Kevin began his message by deploring my crudity. Now he hurls
> himself into the trough like a razorback boar. Consistency, thy
> name is Kevin.
This is very different. "Earthy" language has been employed on the
MegaList since long before Chris was invited to join. (And, by the
way, Robert, he *was* invited to join by the moderator, so if you
want to exclude Chris now you should be talking about *expulsion*,
not rejection of an application to join; he's already in.)
Hurling a violent epithet at another person is something very
different from characterizing what's coming from another as
amounting to that. Imagine a black man asking a bigot, "You
callin' me nigger?" What is offensive is the attachment of crude
associations to the person of another; what comes out of his
mouth ior from his dancing fingers is fair game.
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:13:28 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Re: News FLASH (Schuessler)
["Challenge" snipped.]
[KL:]
>>>> 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.
[Steve:]
>>> This is my private, invitation-only list, just like Theft_of_
>>> Fire is yours. Should Prometheus "take over" Theft_of_Fire?
>>> No.
>> Officers willing to follow the constitution should take over
>> Prometheus. Fred Vaughan's "fire" list, which he claims is the
>> "official Prometheus list," makes members subject to expulsion
>> from the list if they post anything that Fred considers "rancorous."
>> (Fred doesn't even extend them the courtesy of notifying them
>> that they've been expelled; they just stop receiving messages.)
>> Until the recent election, Fred was President of Prometheus; he
>> is still Editor of *Gift of Fire*. None of the officers of Promeheus
>> has spoken out against Fred's dictating to Prometheus members.
>> I am offering a free-speech alternative; should I hand this over
>> to the Prometheus officers who are ignoring Fred Vaughan's
>> dictating to the membership, in violation of the Prometheus
>> constitution?
>>
>> I am offering the members of Prometheus *more* freedom than
>> they would have if the exclusive society mailing list were under
>> the control of the rather annally retentive (i.e., tyrannical) officers
>> of Prometheus. You are offering members of Mega *less* freedom
>> than they would have if you made this list a democracy. As I've
>> already said, if you don't I will.
> Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. The members of Prometheus have spoken
> at the polls to the effect that while Fred Vaughan may have an
> authoritarian streak, you make him look like Patrick Henry.
And I thought they just voted for officers. Although I agreed, when
asked, to be a write-in candidate agianst Fred Vaughan for Editor,
I have enough trouble editing *Noesis*. I deliberately didn't campaign
at all, to ensure that Fred wouldn't be able to call his victory a mandate.
The Presidential election was muddied by the presence of three
candidates, one of whom was Steve Schuessler; the democracy
candidate (Don Johnson) ran third, but not by a large margin. Fredrik
Ullen won on a second tally between the top two finishers.
> Just look at the way you're trying to Bogart this list!
You should talk, Humphry!
[Comments of mine not commented on snipped.]
>>>> 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.
>>> I received private messages, talked to members on the phone,
>>> even several face-to-face. At one time the poll stood deadlocked
>>> at 5-5. That's not a clear concensus, but you didn't know that.
>> No. And you should have disclosed it before you went ahead and
>> invited Chris Langan to join this list.
> No, he shouldn't have. As a member of the Society, I was eligible
> for invitation. And that's all there is to it.
That's not the way Steve sees it. According to him it's his private list.
But, even within that framework, he still had a duty not to mislead
those who accepted his invitation by asking their advice then
ignoring it. If's as if God had said to the Israelites, "Sorry, you don't
get any land."
<snip>
>> I think that whatever contention there may have been between
>> Chris Langan and others in the Mega Society has been pretty
>> much resolved already. Chris has his notions and other people
>> have theirs and never the twain shall meet.
> Kevin, you can speak only for yourself.
Of course. It says "I think" there. I'd be pleased to be proven wrong,
but I predict that if this happens it will be the result of Chris coming
down from his high horse and not of a change of heart on the part
of those who have maliciously been denying the truth of his perfect
system.
> Others may not mind rational twainship with their fellow members.
I don't.
>>>>> 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.
>> No surprises so far.
> You can say that again.
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:05:00 -0400 (EDT), Chris wrote:
> Subject: Re: [MegaList] Pokémon or Telamon
[Steve:]
>>>> 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.
Discussion has proceeded regardless of politics. All members'
views are included in *Noeis*, though not necessarily every
submission.
It seems fairly evident that Steve Schuessler has ignored the
wishes of the membership once. What is to prevent him from
doing it again? (I have no doubt of Steve's good intentions; I
just prefer democratic decision-making.)
>>>> 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 hasn't. Individual members have, though exactly *how
noteworthy* certain productions are is in dispute.
> It was a circle jerk - two or three self-anointed bigshots
> passed the reporter around among themselves and lubed
> her/him right up.
This is also highly offensive.
> Until the media have reason to suspect that the Mega Society
> can live up to its name, they will take no interest.
How is Monica Lewinsky living up to her name?
<snip>
>>> 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.
Of content *as defined by society at large*. It would, of course,
put Mega on the map if Mega members won a Nobel Prize or two.
So, whatever your field, get busy and make your mark so we can
all bask in the the reflected glory.
>>> 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.
A partial story. The last thing that Dr. Jensen needs is to be
dragged into somebody else's dispute.
> Now we're ready for a new routine.
Nothing new about it. The issues are currently under discussion
in the Mega Society journal (*Noesis*, not "East Coast Noesis").
<snip>
>>> 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.
There is some controversy about my work, but there is a consensus
in the higher-IQ-societies psychometic community that my tests are
respectably *g* loaded and reliable up to high ranges, The greater
psychometic community is as yet unaware of my work, which has
suited me up until the present, because I have only recently
developed my norming methods to a point of sufficient robustness
that I feel fully confident in defending them.
>>> 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?
>From the same perspective, where's the value in having the members
we've got? They don't understand the CTMU. If you ask me, they're
just a damned inconvenience!
Again, show me the money.
>> 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.
But are they ready to mix it up with you?
> What about you?
Bring on the academics.
> And more importantly, what about qualified members of the
> group?
I'll let those more qualified than me answer for themselves.
Kevin Langdon
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 01:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Reply to Chris Langan 4/5/99
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:
> I have deleted "challenges" for which an adequate response
> would require extensive research, but as for Chris' demands
> for examples of his mistakes, one need look no further than
> his current volley of message. I've pointed them out where
> I've found them.
This is rather amusing, coming from a person who, in two consecutive
issues of the newsletter he edits, literally hallucinated typographical
errors that turned out not to exist. The whole episode was absolutely
hilarious. Perhaps some of you would like me to make it available on the
Internet?
>
> >> Anyone [including Bob Dick] may point out the truth.
>
> > Only after they've been sufficiently medicated to see it.
>
> Again, Chris Langan's cruelty is evident.
Bob Dick, bless his wizened little heart, has been nothing but nasty to me
from the first moment I became aware of his existence. I quickly deduced
the reason: he is, to put it mildly, an unswerving Langdon partisan. I
wouldn't mind this if he confined his criticism of me to the content of
what I say, calmly pointing out whatever specific errors he imagines I've
made. But he knows only one mode of interaction: ad hominem attack. Bob
Dick hates me because I'm Chris Langan. It's he who has been deliberately
cruel to me, and I'm out of patience with him.
> >>> Casting the first stone is reserved for him who is without sin,
> >>> and Bob is a sinner.
>
> > I'm sure that everyone weeps bitter tears over your protracted
> > victimization, Kevin. As they would for any other prostitute.
>
> And again. (And where's the money I'm supposed to have made?)
Kevin, everyone knows that you've made money in several ways through your
long association with the HIQ community. And it hasn't been lost on anyone
that you quickly aligned yourself with Chris Cole after learning that he
owned a lucrative software company.
> >>> Most IQ tests are themselves normed using childhood scores.
> >>> Using scores from tests normed with childhood scores isn't
> >>> really that far removed from using the childhood scores directly.
> >>> The inflationary effects are transitive. Use your head.
>
> >> There is *some* truth to this, but the problem of low correlation
> >> between childhood scores and adult scores is well known and
> >> the norms of some of the adult tests (e.g., the college-admission
> >> tests) are independent of childhood scores. Also, data that is
> >> adequate in bulk may be inadequate for accurately estimating
> >> an individual's "true score," especially at high levels.
>
> > This is specious. The SAT isn't an IQ test; it's a test of crystallized
> > intelligence.
>
> The SAT is as highly *g* loaded as a lot of other "IQ tests."
I grant you that, Kevin. But g may not be the only thing that power IEQ
tests have in common with the SAT, which is primarily a test of
crystallized as opposed to fluid intelligence.
> > Most other IQ tests are indeed normed using childhood scores,
> > and these scores have been incorporated in the power-IEQ test
> > normings. The baby's already in the bath water that Kevin wants
> > to throw out. He can't do this without experimental statistical
> > gyrations that would curl the lip of any mainstream
> > psychometrician.
>
> There have been studies of the actutal incidence of scores in the
> general population which have made it possible to place the
> childhood scores in perspective. The distributions coincide
> reasonably well near the mean, but less well farther from it.
Mega qualifiers have scores that are very far indeed from the mean.
> > Kevin assumes that others agree with him that prestige is alien to
> > the purpose of the Mega Society. I say he's dead wrong. They
> > want to do more than sit in the darkness and dutifully absorb the
> > priceless insights of Great Generalist Kevin Langdon.
>
> > And for those who don't yet know it, Paul got incensed not by
> > Kevin's remarks about the CTMM, but because Kevin let his
> > application for Mega membership sit around for an eternity even
> > after Jeff Ward recommended acceptance, in effect treating him
> > like a bump on a log (for over a year).
>
> As I was not an officer of Mega at the time in question, one
> wonders what Mr. Maxim might have expected. I did consult
> with the officers of both Mega and Prometheus about Mr. Maxim's
> applications, advising, in both cases, that the societies act in
> accordance with the admission standards established by vote of
> their respective memberships.
You weren't an officer then, and you aren't now. But that didn't stop you
from playing the junkyard dog right alongside of Chris Cole (who also is
not an officer), thus sealing your own fate viv-a-vis Paul Maxim. And as
we've already pointed out, pre-merger regulations were rendered null and
void by Mr. Cole when he appointed himself Pope.
> > >>> After all, what do you think our typical member would rather
> >>> be known as? A member of the world's one and only mega-
> >>> level HIGH IQ SOCIETY, or a mamber of "a club selecting
> >>> its members by means of high-ceiling intelligence tests having
> >>> no proven relationship to IQ per se, but approved of by the
> >>> great Kevin Foghorn Langdon"?
>
> I'd rather be known as a member of a high-iq society.
>
Well, then, there you have it. We have to accept tests recognized by the
psychometric community as IQ tests. Meanwhile, we can work on refining our
other tests with an eye to getting them accepted as well.
>
> >>> Try to be rational about this. We need at least a few members
> >>> with authentic mega-level IQ scores certified by the
> >>> psychometric community, and as we all know, the only way
> >>> to rack up those scores on the reputable standardized tests is
> >>> as a child.
>
> > But if he's saying that the Mega Society should rename itself
> > "The 1-in-300,000 Society", who wants to buy into that? The
> > fact is that if we're going to accept one inadequate kind of test,
> > we might as well accept the other.
>
> That's like saying that if we have one inadequately-civilized
> member, we ought to accept another.
If the second is a siamese twin of the first, we *have* to accept it.
This approximates the relationship between power-IEQ tests and the
standard IQ tests used to norm them (childhood scores and all).
> Those are not the only options. The state of the art in high-range
> psychometrics needs to advance only a small amount to produce
> instruments capable of discriminating at the one-per-million
> level. We can adhere to the target of a 1/10^6 admission level;
> we've already grandfathered in all present members--and we
> should update the date of grandfathering from time to time,
> because adjustments to the meaning of scores continue to be
> necessary as we learn more about high-range psychometrics. If
> we're making headway, the average magnitude of the adjustments
> should decline over time.
Kevin, if we really know more about high-range psychometrics because of
your work, it would be nice of you to let us know what it is that we've
"learned". Spell it out for us so that we can subject it to critical
analysis. And as far as only "refinement" being necessary to jack up test
ceilings, how much time and motivation do you think you can reasonably
expect from test subjects? At some point, people simply lack the time to
be further tested. It's an obvious case of diminishing returns.
>
> > IQ is not a votable issue. It's there or it isn't. In Paul's case, it's
> > there, and the public education system of the City of New York
> > has certified it.
>
> Here, again, Chris has a problem with accepting the will of the
> membership if it goes against his prejudices. And here, again,
> Chris confuses a government bureaucracy with an authority on
> psychometrics. Tell us what eminent psychometrician claims that
> the CTMM discriminates at the mega level?
I'm talking not about the CTMM, but about Paul's scores on the Pintner
Intermediate at the tender age of 10. I've seen his score sheets and I've
seen professional evaluations of those tests. So, I suspect, has Jeff
Ward. That's why Jeff originally recommended that Paul be admitted.
>
> ["Challenge" snipped.]
"Challenge" stands anyway, you slippery snake. From Bayesian Regression to
Newcomb's Paradox to the Two Boys and Two Envelopes problems, I've kicked
WCF ass. If you're claiming that I didn't, then why don't we give all
these new members a chance to make up their own minds?
Stop lying and running away from me, Kevin. Meet me on fair ground
regarding those problems we debated so that everyone can see who actually
won the debates. Do you think the people on this list are so stupid that
they can't discern your cowardly avoidance tactics?
>
> > They'd only come up with a battery of licensed psychometricians
> > to pronounce you a fraud. You're trying to avoid that, and we all
> > know it.
>
> It may not have to go that far. It may be possible to resolve the
> matter at an earlier stage--or I may come to the conclusion that it's
> better to operate outside California. And if it does come to that,
> there'll be licensed psychometricians on my side, too.
I doubt you could find a single licensed psychometrician who would stand
up for you against his colleagues and against the legal establishment.
That much should be obvious even to you.
>
> >> "...and all you Langdonoids can shove your Easter eggs up your
> >> asses!"
>
> > Kevin began his message by deploring my crudity. Now he hurls
> > himself into the trough like a razorback boar. Consistency, thy
> > name is Kevin.
>
> This is very different. "Earthy" language has been employed on the
> MegaList since long before Chris was invited to join. (And, by the
> way, Robert, he *was* invited to join by the moderator, so if you
> want to exclude Chris now you should be talking about *expulsion*,
> not rejection of an application to join; he's already in.)
And now we start getting down to the *real* Kevin Langdon. Why, it's not
even Foghorn himself who wants my "expulsion"; it's Bob Dick! But hey, as
long as the subject has been broached in so many words by the estimable
Mr. Dick, who is Kevin Langdon to silence him?
Kevin, you're as transparent as a pane of flyspecked plexiglass. Just
remember - if you Borgia out on us again, there *will* be repurcussions.
First, I'll expel you. Then...well, just use that perfervid imagination of
yours. First there was California...
> ["Challenge" snipped.]
No, Foghorn. "Challenge" is the real meat of the issue. You've been
running, hiding, cheating and lying for a decade now. It's time to come to
Jesus.
>
> [KL:]
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> That's not the way Steve sees it. According to him it's his private list.
> But, even within that framework, he still had a duty not to mislead
> those who accepted his invitation by asking their advice then
> ignoring it. If's as if God had said to the Israelites, "Sorry, you don't
> get any land."
>
Got a line to God now, Kevin?
>
> >> I think that whatever contention there may have been between
> >> Chris Langan and others in the Mega Society has been pretty
> >> much resolved already. Chris has his notions and other people
> >> have theirs and never the twain shall meet.
>
> > Kevin, you can speak only for yourself.
>
> Of course. It says "I think" there. I'd be pleased to be proven wrong,
> but I predict that if this happens it will be the result of Chris coming
> down from his high horse and not of a change of heart on the part
> of those who have maliciously been denying the truth of his perfect
> system.
Kevin, even a monkey knows enough not to make a negative judgment on what
he hasn't read. You can't meaningfully deny the truth of something you
don't understand, and you don't understand anything I write. But right
now on two HIQ message boards, there is evidence that plain old college
students can understand what you cannot.
Given that this is the case, why are you in the Mega Society?
> >>>> 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.
>
> Discussion has proceeded regardless of politics. All members'
> views are included in *Noeis*, though not necessarily every
> submission.
No, Kevin. You've killed several lines of discussion by pronouncing
certain peoples' contributions "crap!" and threatening to spike them. This
tends to happen most of all to people who disagree with you. That's why
we have two editions of Noesis now. Whatever you can't understand or don't
agree with is "irrational" and must be censored; whatever you understand
and agree with becomes, by fiat, "the will of the members". Who do you
think you're kidding? You're about the least trustworthy editor that Old
King Cole could have picked for his newsletter.
But that's why he picked you, isn't it?
> It seems fairly evident that Steve Schuessler has ignored the
> wishes of the membership once. What is to prevent him from
> doing it again? (I have no doubt of Steve's good intentions; I
> just prefer democratic decision-making.)
What you really prefer are closed forums and backstabbing and secret
membership rosters and rigged elections. That's why you've been booted out
of authority in every group you've ever belonged to (except this one, and
that's because your authority *here* is strictly imaginary).
> >>>> 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 hasn't. Individual members have, though exactly *how
> noteworthy* certain productions are is in dispute.
>
> > It was a circle jerk - two or three self-anointed bigshots
> > passed the reporter around among themselves and lubed
> > her/him right up.
>
> This is also highly offensive.
You're 100% right. Everyone was offended except the "stars (or should I
say hams?) of the show". It gave us an outside shot at an explosion of
publicity, but was squandered on the most mediocre representatives our
group contains.
> > Until the media have reason to suspect that the Mega Society
> > can live up to its name, they will take no interest.
>
> How is Monica Lewinsky living up to her name?
>
> <snip>
Yeah, you're a snip, all right.
> >>> 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.
>
> Of content *as defined by society at large*. It would, of course,
> put Mega on the map if Mega members won a Nobel Prize or two.
> So, whatever your field, get busy and make your mark so we can
> all bask in the the reflected glory.
No. Here in the Mega Society, we don't rely on "reflected glory" from
academia and its politicized spinoffs. We're an alternative to academia,
not a beggar at its table. So we don't have to suceed in academia to
expect just recognition here. Don't play dumb, Kevin. I know it comes
naturally to you, but this is not a group for dummies.
>
> > 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.
>
> There is some controversy about my work, but there is a consensus
> in the higher-IQ-societies psychometic community that my tests are
> respectably *g* loaded and reliable up to high ranges, The greater
> psychometic community is as yet unaware of my work, which has
> suited me up until the present, because I have only recently
> developed my norming methods to a point of sufficient robustness
> that I feel fully confident in defending them.
Unfortunately, your tests are also persistence loaded. And as far as
the psychometric community would be concerned, they're collusion loaded
throughout most of their ranges. This, even more than their norming, is
why they're increasingly out of favor with the superhigh IQ groups.
> > >>> 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?
>
> >From the same perspective, where's the value in having the members
> we've got? They don't understand the CTMU. If you ask me, they're
> just a damned inconvenience!
>
> Again, show me the money.
Why does it always come down to money with you, Kevin? And once more, you
can speak only for yourself regarding the CTMU.
>
> >> 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.
>
> But are they ready to mix it up with you?
Irrelevant. If they get zapped hard enough in the media - "Mega Succeeds
Where Acadummies Fail!" - they'll have no choice. Since you're forever
howling about your victimization by academically-trained bureaucrats, why
are you always maintaining that we should just roll over for the
bureaucrats of academia? You make no sense...especially when, in your next
breath, you say
>
> Bring on the academics.
That's the best thing you've said so far.
Chris Langan